Total Posts:151|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Future of the GOP

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 4:21:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
As I see it, sometime before 2020, the GOP is going to change dramatically.

The Republican party is going to become more liberal on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) eventually to the point where it resembles a very-moderate form of libertarianism.

Of course the Sarah Palin's and Mike Huckabee's will have to be done away with.

Or is the Republican Party going to completely shatter and basically give the rest of the 21st Century over to a permanent Democratic majority?

I think it'll be the first one.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 4:28:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would like it for it to be the first one as well... but I have worries that it won't happen, at least without a lot of pain.

Case and point with the recent shake-up of the GOP in NY-23. A liberal candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was dropped because of her propensity towards allowing gay marriage and abortion rights. Instead of supporting her candidacy, the GOP machine instead backed a third-party candidate who was more socially conservative.

If the GOP has trouble over a small Congressional district, then you can imagine the pain that could occur if they get more moderate candidates for 2010 and 2012.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 6:13:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They -have- to become more liberal on the current social issues. The natural progression of our social sphere tells us that controversial social issues usually side with liberals in the end (e.g. slavery. The pre-cursors to the Republicans took the liberal stance and won.)

It will be new issues, like net neutrality or issues we haven't even conceived of yet, that the Republicans will bemoan next.

They needn't change, because they are, or rather they should be, a free-market party with unfortunate, and oddly associated, draconian social policies. They have been that party for 60-odd years and they're not going to stop now
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:00:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kurtz is correct. A look at the history of the GOP suggests that they will give in on these issues and move on to conservative positions on new ones. This happened with social security, civil rights, medicare, interracial marriage, &ct. I don't think the question is will they drop the issues, but when will they. Are the recent stirrings in the party an indication that the time is now?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:04:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would have no problem with them becoming libertarian on social issues. The libertarian social arguments are more consistent with their economic beliefs.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:11:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 7:04:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I would have no problem with them becoming libertarian on social issues. The libertarian social arguments are more consistent with their economic beliefs.

Their economic beliefs are more classical liberal than libertarian. I've found that there is an actual difference; Republicans are consistently in favour of a basic structure of regulation which is more passive in its implementation than active. Libertarians, meanwhile, are not in favour of any government interference.

Republicans favour the checks and balances approach, while libertarians are just leave-'em-to-the-wolves.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:11:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 7:04:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I would have no problem with them becoming libertarian on social issues. The libertarian social arguments are more consistent with their economic beliefs.

If you sincerely believe that the Republicans are libertarian, you have another thing coming.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:13:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 7:11:30 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 11/5/2009 7:04:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I would have no problem with them becoming libertarian on social issues. The libertarian social arguments are more consistent with their economic beliefs.

If you sincerely believe that the Republicans are libertarian, you have another thing coming.

Its like saying New Democrats are neo-cons.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:17:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 7:11:30 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 11/5/2009 7:04:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I would have no problem with them becoming libertarian on social issues. The libertarian social arguments are more consistent with their economic beliefs.

If you sincerely believe that the Republicans are libertarian, you have another thing coming.

I don't. However, they're in favor of economic liberty in most every case. The party itself(or atleast Bush) was neokeynesian.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:37:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They should go back to Reagan conservatism.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:38:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 7:37:17 PM, mongoose wrote:
They should go back to Reagan conservatism.

..... You mean they should go back to neo-conservative from neo-conservatism?

Good idea!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:22:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Though I'd like to see the repub. party become again a moderate libertarianish party, and can kind of see that it seems that's it's best course of action, I'd rather see a mod. libertarian party form and take votes from both the repubs. and dems., right between the two in all the right ways. I also think a serious third party would be very good for the level of political thinking in the country.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:23:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 4:21:17 PM, Republican95 wrote:
As I see it, sometime before 2020, the GOP is going to change dramatically.

The Republican party is going to become more liberal on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) eventually to the point where it resembles a very-moderate form of libertarianism.


gay marriage is not a correct social liberal concept, it is conservative to promote freedom, and liberty.

And the future for my point of view is

Rand Paul!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:25:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 8:23:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
And the future for my point of view is

Rand Paul!

If people didn't respond to Ron Paul, what makes you think they would respond to his much less intellectual son? Peter Schiff is good.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:29:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 8:25:45 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/5/2009 8:23:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
And the future for my point of view is

Rand Paul!

If people didn't respond to Ron Paul, what makes you think they would respond to his much less intellectual son? Peter Schiff is good.

People respond to ron paul... but he needs a few more years... something he does not have...

But rand paul does have years...
look at the money raised by ron paul last election.. people are listening, it is just to late for ron...
look at the way rand is raising money... they are responding to rand, he just need a little more time.

He will be a senator in ky.
Do a great job as his father has done, and we will see the revolution continue and grow.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:30:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 8:25:45 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/5/2009 8:23:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
And the future for my point of view is

Rand Paul!

If people didn't respond to Ron Paul, what makes you think they would respond to his much less intellectual son? Peter Schiff is good.

Peter Schiff is good, but he has a tough battle for a seat.
If his last name were paul, he would be doing better.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:32:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 8:25:45 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/5/2009 8:23:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
And the future for my point of view is

Rand Paul!

If people didn't respond to Ron Paul, what makes you think they would respond to his much less intellectual son? Peter Schiff is good.

I would also challenge you on his intellect being less.
He is a American eye surgeon, which is an extremely hard surgery field.
He is extremely intellectual.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:33:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 8:23:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
gay marriage is not a correct social liberal concept, it is conservative to promote freedom, and liberty.

Bzzt, wrong.

Social liberalism is the concept that everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms granted to others under the Constitution and whatever else, and that neither the government nor other individuals have the right to squash the rights of another individual. It is social progression, meaning the breaking down of the status quo, which is currently that gay marriage is not allowed.

Conservatives believe in traditionalism and keeping with the status quo. They may support "freedom" and "liberty," but only in the sense that it relates to traditional values; essentially, it is the "freedom and liberty for everyone" ideology for social liberals, versus "freedom and liberty for those that are stuck in the past" for conservatives.

And the future for my point of view is

Rand Paul!

That is less likely to happen than Barack Obama being nominated the next GOP presidential candidate.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:48:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 8:33:09 PM, Volkov wrote:

Social liberalism is the concept that everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms granted to others under the Constitution and whatever else, and that neither the government nor other individuals have the right to squash the rights of another individual. It is social progression, meaning the breaking down of the status quo, which is currently that gay marriage is not allowed.

You just described a conservative view and tried to pass it off as "Social liberalism"
You seem to be getting conservative mixed up with republican.
It is an Conservative concept that everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms granted to others under the Constitution
Conserving the traditions of following the Constitution!

Conservatives believe in traditionalism and keeping with the status quo. They may support "freedom" and "liberty," but only in the sense that it relates to traditional values; essentially, it is the "freedom and liberty for everyone" ideology for social liberals, versus "freedom and liberty for those that are stuck in the past" for conservatives.

Conservatives believe in traditionalism, as in everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms granted to others under the Constitution.
Traditional values, as it relates to the constitution.

My friend, you have just made the mistake that a lot of people make.
You mix Conservatives with all republican traditions, which is false.
It is not Conservative to bail out banks, it is not Conservative to follow the patriot act, it is not Conservative to go to war with iraq, it is not Conservative to continue nation building in afghanistan, and it is not Conservative to break the constitution by allowing the federal government to take everything over.
It is not Conservative to hold back gays from having a chance, it is republicans, and religious radicals.
And the future for my point of view is

Rand Paul!

That is less likely to happen than Barack Obama being nominated the next GOP presidential candidate.

Bzzt, your wrong.
How so?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 8:57:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"It is social progression"

lol. Thats the funniest word.
Progressive Party: the Party of Progress
all others: the parties of yesteryear, ignorance, hate, old ideas, etc.

Though I agree that gay marriage is a "Liberal" idea in that it's for acknowledging equality in civil liberties, in a case where it was not so acknowledged, one can do so for reasons that are not "progressive" or liberal in their U.S. ideologies, but rather for very old, simple reasons, like respecting the constitution and individuality.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:09:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Comoncents, learn some common sense.

You're right in saying that conservatism is about conserving traditions - I never disputed that. But you're missing a major point here; the American Constitution is a wholly liberal idea. I know you don't understand what liberalism is, but trust me on it.

Now using such a thing as a base, you have two routes; one is to preserve the traditions concurrent at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and the other is to actively pursue the breaking down of these traditions and extend the rights to all parties. This is what occurred with slavery, prohibition, repealling prohibition, the limits on Presidential terms, etc.

Conservatism is the idea of preserving traditions that were not considered in the Constitution. It is about limiting the Constitution so it doesn't infringe on traditions.

Progressivism is the idea of breaking the status quo, and extending the use of the Constitution to parties it never previously extended to.

There is a big, big difference between these two. Republicans espouse conservatism, though neo-conservatives warp it, which is what you described with most of your list. Democrats espouse liberalism and progressivism.

How do I know this? Because I actually look up what things are. Try doing the same.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:27:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Progressivism"...

lol
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:31:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 9:09:09 PM, Volkov wrote:


Conservatism is the idea of preserving traditions that were not considered in the Constitution. It is about limiting the Constitution so it doesn't infringe on traditions.

That is just wrong... Conservatism is preserving traditions that are in our Constitution, not limiting it so it doesn't infringe on traditions.
That is modern republican to limit the Constitution it so it doesn't infringe on traditions.

Progressivism is the idea of breaking the status quo, and extending the use of the Constitution to parties it never previously extended to.

I disagree.
Progressivism is a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. But has no foundation, just ideas that seem to make things fair.
Conservatism is a disposition in politics to preserve what is established(the constitution) b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxeses, limited government regulation of business and investing... based upon a foundation of the Constitution!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:35:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 9:27:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
"Progressivism"...

lol

I saw your last post, by the way.

It is progressivism; it is falling back on the Constitution, an old document, but it the difference in the application of the Constitution that is the point.

It is the negation of a conservative view that the tradition should be respected, and that the Constitution does just that. Progressivism is the idea that the tradition shouldn't be kept, and that the Constitution backs that idea.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:39:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 9:35:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/5/2009 9:27:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
"Progressivism"...

lol

I saw your last post, by the way.

It is progressivism; it is falling back on the Constitution, an old document, but it the difference in the application of the Constitution that is the point.

It is the negation of a conservative view that the tradition should be respected, and that the Constitution does just that. Progressivism is the idea that the tradition shouldn't be kept, and that the Constitution backs that idea.

"progressivism; it is falling back on the Constitution..."

Prove it, than!
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:41:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 9:35:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/5/2009 9:27:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
"Progressivism"...

lol

I saw your last post, by the way.

It is progressivism; it is falling back on the Constitution, an old document, but it the difference in the application of the Constitution that is the point.

It is the negation of a conservative view that the tradition should be respected, and that the Constitution does just that. Progressivism is the idea that the tradition shouldn't be kept, and that the Constitution backs that idea.

An American conservative only has the Constitution as a foundation!

Progressives try to manipulate the Constitution to make radical ideas fit. But if it does not fit, they don't care, they will push the policies anyway.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:44:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 9:35:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/5/2009 9:27:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
"Progressivism"...

lol

I saw your last post, by the way.

It is progressivism; it is falling back on the Constitution, an old document, but it the difference in the application of the Constitution that is the point.

It is the negation of a conservative view that the tradition should be respected, and that the Constitution does just that. Progressivism is the idea that the tradition shouldn't be kept, and that the Constitution backs that idea.

"Progressive" ideology is also very much about achieving some "progress" in bringing about social/financial equity among people.
Progressives are for Aff. Action, expanded social programs, Public provision of services, etc.
All of which are not related in the constitution, and have nothing to do with liberties.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:45:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 9:31:59 PM, comoncents wrote:
That is just wrong... Conservatism is preserving traditions that are in our Constitution, not limiting it so it doesn't infringe on traditions.

No - the Constitution is neutral in regards to this. Conservatism preaches that the Constitution limits some rights being extended to some groups based on traditions of the time, while progressivism denies such a claim and want to extend the use of the Constitution.

That is modern republican to limit the Constitution it so it doesn't infringe on traditions.

That is what conservatism is!

Progressivism is a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. But has no foundation, just ideas that seem to make things fair.

.... No?

Progressivism is the idea that the status quo should be broken - which can entirely be based on the Constitution, but it is simply extending the Constitution to others in ways it wasn't used by prior governments.

If it entails ideas that "make things fair," then so be it, but it is far from limited in scope like that.

Conservatism is a disposition in politics to preserve what is established(the constitution) b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change;

Yes, yes, and yes - none of this negates my point.

specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxeses, limited government regulation of business and investing... based upon a foundation of the Constitution!

The Constitution says nothing about taxes, or limited government intervention, or anything. What you said would be classicial liberal economics, which you can argue is "conservative" because it is what was in the past, sort of. But, the Constitution doesn't really have anything to do with it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:49:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 9:44:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
"Progressive" ideology is also very much about achieving some "progress" in bringing about social/financial equity among people.
Progressives are for Aff. Action, expanded social programs, Public provision of services, etc.
All of which are not related in the constitution, and have nothing to do with liberties.

Nothing to do with "liberties"? Assuming you mean "rights," then you're completely wrong.

Affirmative action and other ideas you put forward are ideas meant to secure rights for disenfranchised groups. It is the implementation of positive rights - something that contrasts with the implementation of negative rights in the past.

Most cite the Constitution as basis, or wish to add it to the Constitution. That is progressivism.