The Future of the Republican Party

[Al6200]

What do you think is the future of the Republican party? With their reputation tarnished, and their ranks split by the economic crisis (Republicans were the bulk of the opposition to the bailout), who and what will they unite around in the future?

Who will the Republicans run in the 2012 and 2016 elections if McCain loses this one? Who do you think they should run? What issues do you think they should focus on?

Now to answer my own questions:

I think the future of the Republican party will probably fall to people like Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal. As much as I hate to say it, the anti-business attitude that exists today will make it quite difficult for someone like Mitt Romney to be successful. We've already seen the Republican's populist side in their opposition to the bailout bill, and I think that they're going to continue to act that way so as to differentiate themselves from Bush's Republicans.

As far as issues, I think that the Republicans are going to be very socially conservative, but moderate on some economic issues. Fair Tax is probably going to become more central, and I suspect that the Republicans will move away from free trade positions too.

In 2012 (all assuming McCain loses) I think it's going to be Mike Huckabee. If he loses to Obama then I think the Republicans will run Jindal in 2016.

[MultiCanimefan]

If any party needs to recover, at least from any actions regarding the economy, it's the Democratic Party because of Freddy and Fannie. I'm a Democrat, and I'm aware the Dems caused more economic damage than the Reps, though both are at fault. As for who the Reps will run for President in 2012 or 2016, I believe it should be Mitt Romney. If he didn't drop out this year I'd most likely be voting for him; who the Reps will actually run I don't know. No party perfect, and both have done equal good and bad during this country's history.

[Saruman200]

At 10/22/08 07:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: What do you think is the future of the Republican party? With their reputation tarnished, and their ranks split by the economic crisis (Republicans were the bulk of the opposition to the bailout), who and what will they unite around in the future?

Well, I'm a Democrat, but I know the Democrats were just as responsible for the economic crisis as the Republicans (Fannie and Freddie) but I think the public for the most part blames it on the Republicans, so I suppose your right.

Who will the Republicans run in the 2012 and 2016 elections if McCain loses this one? Who do you think they should run? What issues do you think they should focus on?

I think predicting who they will run 4-8 years later is a little silly. Do you think anyone predicted "Oh the Democratic candiate next election will be a young black guy form Illinois" in 2004 or 2000. I doubt it, and I doubt almost equally they would have predicted McCain. We could see new faces, old comebacks, or anything else.

As for who they should run, that's another big what if. It depends on what the conditions are. If we're still in a economic downturn, or a recession, or even a depression, then they should focus on the economy and try to blame it on the Dems, and president Obama (we are prosuming Obama wins, right) who won't have improved anything.

But if we're not, then they should focus on what they usually do: hot button social issues. That's what wins them most elections. And they should know it. Think, social issues have played big parts in the last two elections, and the Republicans won. But in this election, they've been almost ignored, and in all likelyhood the GOP will lose. The book What happened to Kansas? makes a good point along those lines.

Now to answer my own questions:

I think the future of the Republican party will probably fall to people like Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal. As much as I hate to say it, the anti-business attitude that exists today will make it quite difficult for someone like Mitt Romney to be successful. We've already seen the Republican's populist side in their opposition to the bailout bill, and I think that they're going to continue to act that way so as to differentiate themselves from Bush's Republicans.

Meh, Mitt Romney was my favorite to win the GOP nomination this year, but I agree with you, they need some hardcore social conservatives like Huckabee and Jindal, but not nessicarily them exactly. Could be any social conservative.

As far as issues, I think that the Republicans are going to be very socially conservative, but moderate on some economic issues. Fair Tax is probably going to become more central, and I suspect that the Republicans will move away from free trade positions too.

Well, they don't nessicarily have to be moderate economically to be successful, they just don't have to focus on the economy. People will look at the issues that the major parties want to focus them the election on. How many people have told you there voting for McCain/Obama because of their positions on social issues? Not many I bet. Most will say economic issues, less foreign policy, and hardly any social issues.

In 2012 (all assuming McCain loses) I think it's going to be Mike Huckabee. If he loses to Obama then I think the Republicans will run Jindal in 2016.

Meh...again, I think giving names are silly. Better just give characteristics. Both those guys could have faded from the politcal scene. But I suppose that it could happen. George McGovern lost the Democratic nomination in 68, but came back and got it in 72 (but he wasn't very successful, he only won Mass.).

[Cebster]

Well lets see. Because the democrats are to passive a revolt will most likely not happen, we will sleep through it. Capitalism cant live if th unemployed number reaches under 7% and it must retard technology to supply work. This all may seem a bit of subject but let us now witness the future. The economy goes through horrible depressions and inflammations in till finally the government steps in, thus America turns to nationalism. From ther on you can only guess whats next.

[Al6200]

At 10/22/08 09:44 PM, aninjaman wrote: The Republicans will probably start going back to its roots and try to be the GOP before Bush.

Well, before GW Bush, there was Bush Senior and Ronald Reagen, who were ideologically quite different. Reagen was, in my honest opinion, quite a bit like George Bush Junior, while Bush Senior was a pretty competent president.

I would like the Republicans to go all the way back to Roosevelt, or perhaps go back even farther to their northern industrialist/businessman roots.

[TheMason]

I think the Republicans are probably going to recover from this quite easily. In 2010 the Democrats will have had four years of legislative control and two years of executive control. If things are not getting better, they are not going to make significant gains in the mid-term elections. If the Democrats still control both Congress and the Presidency in 2012...and things are not better expect Obama to be a one-termer. In fact the Americanists in my department think that whoever is elected this year will be a one-termer.

So I think losing this year is actually good for the Republican party. If we slide into a depression then fault will go to the Democrats (afterall it is very easy to show where fault can be shared with Clinton and market forces).

If 2012 were today the serious candidates would be:
Huckabee (shudder)
Romney
Palin

But it is too far in the future to worry about that. In fact the whole economic/business vs. social conservative is kinda hard to tell. People are not as much anti-business as they are anti-bailout (two different things)...and if Obama's government-centric solutions cause them to loose their private sector jobs then social issues will not matter in 2010 or 2012 just as they do not currently matter in 2008.

[Al6200]

At 10/25/08 06:55 AM, TheMason wrote: I think the Republicans are probably going to recover from this quite easily. In 2010 the Democrats will have had four years of legislative control and two years of executive control. If things are not getting better, they are not going to make significant gains in the mid-term elections. If the Democrats still control both Congress and the Presidency in 2012...and things are not better expect Obama to be a one-termer. In fact the Americanists in my department think that whoever is elected this year will be a one-termer.

I get where you're coming from. But I think that Barack Obama is such a smooth talker that he'll be able to convince everyone that all bad things are Bush's fault, and that we have to unite behind him to solve them.

So I think losing this year is actually good for the Republican party. If we slide into a depression then fault will go to the Democrats (afterall it is very easy to show where fault can be shared with Clinton and market forces).

Nah, everyone is still going to blame Bush because the banks collapsed and the crisis started under his term. I mean, if anything, people will condemn Barack Obama for not doing enough to fix it.

I think this is a fundamental shift that will give the democrats a solid majority for many years. As a Republican, that bothers me. But as an American, I can see the advantages to having a government that's unified enough to get things done.

If 2012 were today the serious candidates would be:
Huckabee (shudder)
Romney
Palin

Palin would be interesting. I have a feeling, though, that the lesson from 2008 will be that picking a good speaker who can really move people is essential to victory. Huckabee is that kind of a public speaker. Romney/Palin aren't.

But it is too far in the future to worry about that. In fact the whole economic/business vs. social conservative is kinda hard to tell. People are not as much anti-business as they are anti-bailout (two different things)...and if Obama's government-centric solutions cause them to loose their private sector jobs then social issues will not matter in 2010 or 2012 just as they do not currently matter in 2008.

Oh, I'd be very surprised if we don't see some very serious anti-business pogroms in the near future. I've been reading some socialist forums lately, and there's quite a buildup of hatred there aimed squarely at investment bankers. I think that if things do get worse, the democrats are going to try to use the investment bankers as a scapegoat.

[Saruman200]

At 10/25/08 06:55 AM, TheMason wrote: I think the Republicans are probably going to recover from this quite easily. In 2010 the Democrats will have had four years of legislative control and two years of executive control. If things are not getting better, they are not going to make significant gains in the mid-term elections. If the Democrats still control both Congress and the Presidency in 2012...and things are not better expect Obama to be a one-termer. In fact the Americanists in my department think that whoever is elected this year will be a one-termer.

So I think losing this year is actually good for the Republican party. If we slide into a depression then fault will go to the Democrats (afterall it is very easy to show where fault can be shared with Clinton and market forces).

Who gets blamed for the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover. Thing is, Hoover was only pres at the very beginning of the Depression. Roosevelt was president for the majority of the depression, but we still blame Hoover (and I'm not saying we shouldn't). The same thing will happen here me thinks. Bush was president at the beginning of this crisis, so just because Obama may be president for the worse of it, doesn't nessicarily mean he's going to get the blame. I'm a sceptical to the bullshit historians who say Roosevelt lengthened the Great Depression, but it's not like the instant he got in every became all shiny again. The guy who starts the shit usually gets blamed. And we all know Roosevelt was hardly a one-termer...

However, I don't think will be a lasting burden for the Republicans. Let's look at another historical example: Watergate. People lost trust in the Republicans and they were forced to build there party from the ground up. The next election they lost, but 4 years later one of their most popular presidents, Ronald Reagan was elected. We might see some short term problems for the Republicans (I guess 4-8 years of Obama), but they'll probably end up rebounding.

If 2012 were today the serious candidates would be:
Huckabee (shudder)
Romney
Palin

Hm...I don't see Palin in there. If she and McCain lose now, then she's probably done as a national candiate. People will remember how she was a liability to McCain. Replace her with Jindal and I think that would be the most realistic list of people who are important NOW. There may be new faces that rise in between now and 2012.

But it is too far in the future to worry about that. In fact the whole economic/business vs. social conservative is kinda hard to tell. People are not as much anti-business as they are anti-bailout (two different things)...and if Obama's government-centric solutions cause them to loose their private sector jobs then social issues will not matter in 2010 or 2012 just as they do not currently matter in 2008.

Well, that all depends on how well Obama does. If he doesn't do well, I agree with you. But he could do well, and in that case the Republicans will go back to their bible-beating social conservatism to seem more in-touch with Americans than the supposed elitist black guy. But as you said, too far in the future to really tell.

[promontorium]

Oh look a thinly veiled attack. I'm laughing my ass off that the first person to call you out is a Democrat.

1. Dems caused the Freddie Fannie crap, as already mentioned
2. Bush tried to stop the collapse years ago
3. Most people Dem or Republican opposed the bailout, you presume it's the right thing to do, even though it isn't even defined as to who gets the rest of the money so basically you wrote a blank check to "cash" and you think anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? That is the epitome of irresponsibility.
4. Most politicians, Dem or Rep are supporting the bailout, IT ISN'T A PARTY LINE ISSUE.

5. Neither political party represents individuals, they both try to protect groups. They've changed a lot from decades past. They both suck now. I would hope that both of them completely collapse. There is no place in the constitution for political parties. People should run as individuals, they work as individuals, they shouldn't be elected because they belong to a club.