The Republicans Are Now The Stupid Party

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
A spot-on analysis from a former Reagan/Nixon speech writer. This is what the center-right thinks of GWB's Republican party, and explains why the GOP will have such a hard time courting votes in future elections unless they reform. The future voters of America are abandoning the GOP at an alarming rate. They are college educated and raised in an environment which respects science over God, a woman's right to choose, and a homosexual's right to equality; they broke overwhelmingly for Obama in the election. McCain only beat Obama in one age group this year: 65+.

Text

The Republicans Are Now the Stupid Party
by Jeffrey Hart

Obama?s defeat of McCain and Palin has left the Republicans as more a sect than a party, corralled in a few Southern states. This is not good for the conservative movement, nor for democracy in America. So what went wrong for the GOP?

On November 4, two thirds of voters under 30 voted for Obama. That?s the future. A large majority of voters with college educations voted for Obama. That represents the best informed segment of the electorate. So, how did everything go wrong for the Republicans?

A good place to begin would be Barry Goldwater, and his ironic role in history. In 1964 he voted against Lyndon Johnson?s Civil Rights Act, believing on principle that it violated states? rights. The only states Goldwater carried that year were six in the South. Johnson understood that the Civil Rights Act would cost the Democrats the support of the South for a long time.

But the South is the section in which fundamentalist religion is most heavily concentrated. And Goldwater, a western individualist leaning libertarian, loathed fundamentalism. He later said that ?Real Christians should line up to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass.? Goldwater also supported Roe vs. Wade.

Goldwater opened the door to the Southern Strategy for the Republican Party, but Nixon and Reagan largely gave only token support to Southern prejudices. Reagan?s first Supreme Court nominee was Sandra Day O?Connor, whose record indicated that she would not oppose Roe.

George W. Bush was another matter. Karl Rove understood that we are in the midst of what historians call the ?third evangelical awakening.? Bush exploited this opportunity, as in his third televised debate in 2000, when asked what thinker had most influenced him. Bush replied, ?Jesus Christ. Because he made me a better man.? No one opposes Bush being a better man; but the evangelicals understood the signal. In 2000 Bush carried 70 percent of the white evangelical vote.

And he rewarded this faction: stem cells, ?strict constructionist? judges (oppose Roe), religious reasons for invading Iraq (outlined in a speech in Irvine, California), faith-base initiatives (?abstinence only?), and even blocking funds for family planning in Africa!

Needless to say, much of this moves against overwhelming forces in history. Diana Trilling said that the long gestating women?s revolution has been the most profound revolution in history. Women?s equality, for example, has moved slowly ahead since agitation began in the middle of the nineteenth century. Women didn?t get the vote until 1920 (19th Amendment). Former male slaves got the (constitutional) right to vote in 1869 (15th Amendment.)

The availability of abortion is connected with women?s equality. Planned Parenthood vs. Casey: ?The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the country.? Half the undergraduates on most campuses today are women. Men don?t have their plans de-railed by an unwanted pregnancy.

Does any reasonable person not believe that gays and lesbians deserve respect and equality? Not today?s Republican Party. Expert translators from Arabic have been dismissed for being gay. And applicants for the post of certified public accountants in the Iraq Green Zone have been asked about their view of Roe v. Wade.

Both Obama and McCain supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is a cluster of cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence. It takes a strange mentality to equate that with a seriously ill human being. (Bush, August 2001: ?It?s wrong to destroy life in order to save life.?)

But science never sleeps, and embryonic stem cell work has been going on around the world in advanced nations, as well as in state or privately funded laboratories here. Harvard is planning a new billion-dollar science campus, with a major cell-research laboratory. Promising advances of various kinds are being explored world-wide.

So here we are in 2008. With its indispensable Southern and, more widely, evangelical base, the Republican Party has become the stupid party.

In the election, the McCain-Palin ticket received the highest percentage of votes in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia. The Southern Strategy succeeded. It succeeded in facilitating a Democratic landslide. This can not be good for the nation. We need two viable parties.

Sarah Palin is now the heroine of the Republican base. Scary. During the campaign it became obvious that she is completely ignorant on the principal issues. It never became widely known that she is a religious nut: she believes in the imminent End of Days and the ?Rapture,? in which the saved will be suddenly wooshed up to heaven?a notion that has no basis in scripture or anything else. She believes she was elected governor because of a laying-on-of-hands by an African clergyman who had run a witch out of town for causing automobile accidents.

This stuff makes William Jennings Bryan look like Martin Heidegger. I think the recent electoral disaster will energize reasonable Republicans to form a caucus with the party. Eisenhower was a prudential, common sense Republican, who loathed extremism and arrogant ignorance. He knew the New Deal could not be repealed. He once said that Senator William Knowland ?tested the limits of human stupidity.? Despite Watergate, Nixon was a successful center-right president, and first-rate on foreign policy. Reagan too was a successful center-right president. It is no accident that in the election, Julie Nixon Eisenhower and David Eisenhower supported Obama.

In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican Party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished.

Jeffrey Hart is professor emeritus of English at Dartmouth College. He wrote for the National Review for more than three decades, where he was senior editor. He wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan, when governor of California, and for Richard Nixon.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
I'm sure they'll change things up a little bit. If not, good riddance. I wouldn't mind a total party shakeup, even if it meant a complete domination by one party or another for a decade. It would be the best shot for an independant anyways.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I have trouble buying into any fundamental paradigm shifts out of this election considering the situations surrounding it -- people flocking to the democratic party when it runs one of the most charismatic leaders in a generation under the absolute best climate for a political party since at least Nixon doesn't necessarily indicate a real substantial shift in the politics and views of our country so much as a movement that could be isolated to Obama and evaporate as soon as the glow dies down and the democrats have to run someone's who's name isn't Barack.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
I'm sure they'll change things up a little bit. If not, good riddance. I wouldn't mind a total party shakeup, even if it meant a complete domination by one party or another for a decade. It would be the best shot for an independant anyways.

They won't change fast. Gotta get let the old guard die first. I'm willing to guess more than a decade of Democrats in power, but good luck to the independents.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Both parties have re-invented themselves multiple times throughout the history of the United States. We are around now to witness the re-inventing of the Republican party (I hope). 50 years is about as long as any iteration of either party has lasted and it seems about time for the current Republican party to fall apart both from a timeline perspective and from an ideological one.

ZV
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
hmm, I wonder if Jpeyton would be interested in the elimination of Presidential term limits...?
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: TallBill
I'm sure they'll change things up a little bit. If not, good riddance. I wouldn't mind a total party shakeup, even if it meant a complete domination by one party or another for a decade. It would be the best shot for an independant anyways.

They won't change fast. Gotta get let the old guard die first. I'm willing to guess more than a decade of Democrats in power, but good luck to the independents.

I guess time will tell. Ideally I'd love to see a brilliant and un-charismatic independant athiest take the office, with a very good speaker as his VP and spokesperson. Wont happen though :(
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
I have trouble buying into any fundamental paradigm shifts out of this election considering the situations surrounding it -- people flocking to the democratic party when it runs one of the most charismatic leaders in a generation under the absolute best climate for a political party since at least Nixon doesn't necessarily indicate a real substantial shift in the politics and views of our country so much as a movement that could be isolated to Obama and evaporate as soon as the glow dies down and the democrats have to run someone's who's name isn't Barack.

Agreed...good post.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
While the Jeffrey Hart makes a great deal of sense, it somewhat ignores the economic and military disaster aspect of GWB&co. and the last eight years. So we must also respect the post of loki8481 given the fact that the GOP had any votes in 2008. So clearly the GOP has remaining strength to build from.

But rather than consign this thread to yet another what should the GOP do to to rebuild from the ashes of 2008 thread, I will suggest maybe we should only concentrate on the how the GOP will handle the religious right in future. And by extension, why should the religious right continue to vote for GOP that has delivered little or nothing?

But face the facts, no group needed a McCain win more than the religious right. If we assume one of the religious right's fondest hope was a court based repeal of Roe v. Wade, they came tantalizingly close in 2008, just one more swing SCOTUS justice and it might have been in the bag, but with Obama, that long effort is likely dead for at least a generation. Sadly the religious right is mainly Wasp, fundamentalist
anti science, tends to be xenophobic, and overtly anti gay and gay marriage. And other than the gay marriage ban in California, all the nationwide metrics ate moving away from the religious right. Wasp domination is slowly crumbling with large influxes of Asians and Hispanics, the numbers willing to buy into creationist doctrines or anti science doctrines are an already lost battle drifting to the lunatic fringe,
and the fear based appeals are losing their punch. And in only one area has the religious right made any big gains, and that is in the area of government subsidized religious social organizations. And exactly what may be at great peril under an Obama Presidency.

So I wonder if the religious right can pragmatically remake itself, sell itself to the highest bidder, and if nothing else slow the pace of change. Certainly they will have to reach out to Hispanic Catholics, reach some sort of compromise on gay marriage and stem cell research, and if they do not, I think they may go the way of the Dodod.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The smartest thing the GOP could possibly do is jettison the moronic social conservatives who have acted like a giant anchor of stupidity around their party for the past several decades. If only the Republicans were more like the liberatarians, perhaps they'd have a shot in 2012 and beyond . . .
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
You guys are thinking too deep into this.

People are losing houses, people lost a chunk of 401K. People hate Iraq.

Even with all that baggage, Mccain got 46%.

There is no "ideology" shift. People liked Obama, and didnt like JM.

 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
You guys are thinking too deep into this.

People are losing houses, people lost a chunk of 401K. People hate Iraq.

Even with all that baggage, Mccain got 46%.

There is no "ideology" shift. People liked Obama, and didnt like JM.

People are losing houses because they are financially irresponsible. The only people freaking about the markets right now are anyone retiring in the next 5-10 years. If you are closer to retirement, then you should be in low risk areas, and if you are further then you have to understand the business cycle. And we're succeeding in Iraq these days and due to scale back.

But you are correct, 46% of the votes is still an ass-ton.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The smartest thing the GOP could possibly do is jettison the moronic social conservatives who have acted like a giant anchor of stupidity around their party for the past several decades. If only the Republicans were more like the liberatarians, perhaps they'd have a shot in 2012 and beyond . . .

Maybe they also decide to actually be fiscally conservative, instead of spending everything they can get loans for.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
You guys are thinking too deep
I hear that's a chief GOP weakness.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
What are we supposed to do, just accept his tripe as facts because he's been a speechwriter and worked as a journalist? Mr Jeffrey Hart projects his opinions in an article, details at 11...

Another jpeyton piece of crap OP, meant to demoralize Republicans.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
If the republicans were truly a party of conservatives: Smaller government, less spending, more focused domestic policy, less stupid Iraq crap...

If it was a party of real conservative ideals... Obama wouldn't have had a chance.

As it is... They were Dem Light. Spend spend spend... but not too much. And what did that get them? SPEND SPEND SPEND.... IT'S NEVER TOO MUCH! (Dems)


We are about to start the spiral down the toilet. We are the goldfish.

 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
I have trouble buying into any fundamental paradigm shifts out of this election considering the situations surrounding it -- people flocking to the democratic party when it runs one of the most charismatic leaders in a generation under the absolute best climate for a political party since at least Nixon doesn't necessarily indicate a real substantial shift in the politics and views of our country so much as a movement that could be isolated to Obama and evaporate as soon as the glow dies down and the democrats have to run someone's who's name isn't Barack.

On the flip side of it, you could also argue that it must have taken a fundamental shift for the United States of America to have voted in a black guy by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

Whether or not there has been, there most certainly has been a rejection of GOP ideals - and it went far beyond just the presidential race. When Virginia and NC are voting dems into the senate with substantial margins, the landscape is changing.

The most poignant part of the article though is that the republicans are losing ground on each successive generation, and under 30 by a huge margin. Whether it's a step function or not, a shift is happening.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: TallBill
I'm sure they'll change things up a little bit. If not, good riddance. I wouldn't mind a total party shakeup, even if it meant a complete domination by one party or another for a decade. It would be the best shot for an independant anyways.

They won't change fast. Gotta get let the old guard die first. I'm willing to guess more than a decade of Democrats in power, but good luck to the independents.

I guess time will tell. Ideally I'd love to see a brilliant and un-charismatic independant athiest take the office, with a very good speaker as his VP and spokesperson. Wont happen though :(

Me too. Religion (or lack thereof) should not be a issue in Govt.


 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: loki8481
I have trouble buying into any fundamental paradigm shifts out of this election considering the situations surrounding it -- people flocking to the democratic party when it runs one of the most charismatic leaders in a generation under the absolute best climate for a political party since at least Nixon doesn't necessarily indicate a real substantial shift in the politics and views of our country so much as a movement that could be isolated to Obama and evaporate as soon as the glow dies down and the democrats have to run someone's who's name isn't Barack.

On the flip side of it, you could also argue that it must have taken a fundamental shift for the United States of America to have voted in a black guy by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

Whether or not there has been, there most certainly has been a rejection of GOP ideals - and it went far beyond just the presidential race. When Virginia and NC are voting dems into the senate with substantial margins, the landscape is changing.

The most poignant part of the article though is that the republicans are losing ground on each successive generation, and under 30 by a huge margin. Whether it's a step function or not, a shift is happening.

That should be the GOP's worry. People tend to 'stay in party' through their lifetime in as similar way to how people stick to their first bank.

A shrinking base will make it more difficult for any party to win elections.

 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The Republicans Are Now The Stupid Party

Does this mean the Democrats are now the Party of Evil?


Based on the what I see the zealots posting here, I'd say just give it a little time and it will be.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Evangelicals want Creationism taught. Obama has his agenda for my kids. Give me a friggin party which has the platform of leaving people alone and I'll consider them.