Killing The Republican Party

A comment piece (I'm not going to get the hackles up before the discussion starts by giving the name of the author) in The Washington Post talks about long term Republican prospects. It is not pretty.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.

But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Well that is incendiary. Or inartfully phrased as I would put it but, it is true.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.

It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.

From LGF comes an excerpt from the above Washington Post piece that shows the hand writing on the wall:
...like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.

Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.

The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.

Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.

I keep telling my socon friends that Palin didn't even mention any of the issues dear to the hearts of social conservatives as Governor of Alaska and she is as socially conservative as they come. No one knew her position until she got the VP nod. Hence her 80% approval rating.

That is the way forward.

Let me add a couple of other points. Spending like fools. Corruption. And an inability to articulate sound economics or any thing else for that matter are killers as well. We need sound positions and some one who can give the message. And we need to distance ourselves as a party from issues that are cringe making among those not in the base. Because the base is shrinking. And even if it wasn't you can't win elections with the base alone.

I ♥ Sarah'cudda

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 11.19.08 at 05:16 PM










Comments

Would someone please explain to me where the oogedy-boogedy showed up in this election cycle at all?

Frossca   ·  November 19, 2008 6:14 PM

Frossca,

The MSM. It is a branding problem.

M. Simon   ·  November 19, 2008 7:25 PM

I think Sarah Palin showed one important thing. Most social conservatives aren't necessarily asking for someone who's going to ram religion down everyone's throats. They want someone who understands and embraces their values. They want someone who will respect their values. What makes Palin exciting is that she can sell the base on traditional Reaganist Republican ideals, and bring them around to how important that is toward preserving their value system. Republicans need to pick out a position on abortion that the rest of the population who isn't hard core on that issue is not offended by. I think you can make a governing majority with Republican ideas, but you have to stick to them, and nominate people who are willing to lead, rather than pander.

Sebastian   ·  November 19, 2008 8:40 PM

I didn't see any oogedy-boogedy in the election, either.

The only statement that Gov. Palin made was in reference to a
"marriage" for gays and lesbians in an interview, where she said she preferred that marriage be reserved for a man and a woman at a federal level.

I'd like to hear more from her on that topic. Do civil unions offend? I don't know. Her record in Alaska indicates that they don't.

I do have reservations about her. She governs an isolated state with a population equal to the size of one or two large suburbs in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area (where I'm from), if Arlington hasn't grown larger.

Janis Gore   ·  November 19, 2008 8:45 PM

Someone is also going to have to directly address the "fears" of those who thought Bush was after a theocracy and that Sarah Palin was a religious nut and take us closer to the "desired" theocracy.

It was clear to me that she kept her private beliefs out of her governing, but apparently not so to others.

This message will have the added bonus of uncovering the irrationality of the lefties who hated her so badly.

It's not really a matter of "kicking the Christians out" of the Republican party, it's one of educating the extremist Christians who constantly feel under attack that they are in no more danger than the lefties who fear them.

oh what am I thinking????? that we can have a rational discussion? Pardon me while I check to see if I've taken my meds today.

Donna B.   ·  November 19, 2008 9:34 PM

In 1994 the country had had ENOUGH of Clinton and his meddling with their lives and they roundly rejected the meddling and elected what they saw as the only alternative: The Gingrich revolution. Startin in 2006 and ending in 2008 those same "leave me alone" voters had had ENOUGH of Republican jack-assery and elected what they saw as the only alternative: the Democrat party.

Neither election was a mandate, and I can guarantee you that neither party recognizes that. Which is why, in 2 years, if Obama keeps putting people like Holder and Daschle in positions to meddle in our lives (which is seemingly the only thing these fuckwads know how to do) we'll all revert to the only alternative: elect the party not in power. And so on, until someone cops a clue and gets the F out of our business. Permanently.

luke   ·  November 19, 2008 9:35 PM

Donna B.

LOL followed by ROTFLMAO.

M. Simon   ·  November 19, 2008 9:48 PM

Luke,

I think the use of fuck is appropriate here from time to time.

And I agree with your point. The fuckwads of both parties should stop meddling in people's lives.

If gays are stupid enough to want to get their marriages officially sanctioned by the state - let 'em. If women want to end their pregnancies pre-viability I call that Darwin in action. It eliminates anti-reproduction genes from the gene pool. It may not be very moral (excepting for Jews) but it is cosmic justice.

But you know it just seems to drive some of the Republican caucus around the bend. Evidently they feel their powers of persuasion with God on their side are insufficient so it is time to bring the guns of the government to bear on the miscreants to make their argument more forcefully.

Let me note that I hang out at PUMA sites and I found a lot of people who admired Palin's decision to carry her Down's baby to term. She did more for the anti-abortion side by example than all the hectoring of the anti-abortion crowd for the last 30 years. Maybe God is on HER side. Republican's take note.

M. Simon   ·  November 19, 2008 10:05 PM

Dear Mr Simon;

As Gov Palin is a Christian, and as I am also, I feel confident in saying that you've got it wrong.

The question is never whether God is on our side or not. The question is whether we are on God's side. When God is with us (because we are on His side), then no one can stand against us.

Beyond that, meh. I'm all for the hands-off and get-off-my-lawn approach.

Gregory   ·  November 20, 2008 12:00 AM

The current Obama-wave of youth voter has never suffered the pangs of economic misery however this is all about to Change; they will be suffering as they have nevered suffered before and will be looking for relief at which time Conservative principles will be once again en vogue.

Secondly, in this single woman's opinion, the problem with voting America is not the GOD factor but the single female factor.

After 9/11/2001 I converted to Conservatism because I found it empowers me however I have observed that principle driving factor for most single females is the fear of not having someone care for them hence their attraction to the man who will bring them all the economic security they have convinced themselves they deserve.

This election more than anything, shows the absolute failure of 2nd wave Feminism which never empowered the female simply turned her into a hapless child who uses victimhood grievances to weaken her.

The above statement is also the reason why so many woman have a problem with Gov Palin, she reminds them that the failure of Feminist empowerment actually created sniveling, hapless children they have become.

For me, Gov Palin is one of the very few females this 47 year old female can look at and say "Yes, now this is my kind of Womanhood!"

Suffice it to say; I find whiny, childish females grating like metal on a chaukboard.

Anonymous   ·  November 20, 2008 9:01 AM

"But you know it just seems to drive some of the Republican caucus around the bend. Evidently they feel their powers of persuasion with God on their side are insufficient so it is time to bring the guns of the government to bear on the miscreants to make their argument more forcefully"

Here's the thing, RELIGIOUS people voted for the candidate who is more extreme on abortion than NARAL

54% Catholic
40% Protestant and other Christian
78% Jewish

Further, CA Prop 8 for voted into law by the every same people who voted for Democrat Candidate Barack Obama.

In other words, we have no idea who or what defines Religious voter.

Stop using Religion as the excuse when the fact is the Government's GOLDEN ENTITLEMENT COINS are what lured Americans(religious or otherwise) into voting for the Democratic Party.

Americans were conned into believing they'll be receiving a whole bunch of shiny new coins from their new, improved Big Nanny government; problem is Oprah Winfrey and the 5%ers will NEVER spread their Billions to the people who voted for her man Obama.

syn   ·  November 20, 2008 9:12 AM

"Anonymous · November 20, 2008 09:01 AM"

This would be me who posted that observation.

syn   ·  November 20, 2008 9:17 AM

The 'oogedy-boogedy' was avoided in mainstream media and in the election in general. What the writer is refering to is not the average, conservative Christianity in the GOP, but the radical right wing movement that wants to replace the constitution with their interpretation of Old Testament law, including the public stoning of gays, adulterers, and recalcitrant children. A simple search on the following will produce tons of information about this extreme, militant form of Christianity to which the writer is refering: new apostolic reformation, third wave, latter day rain, dominionist theology, reconstructionist theology, "the family", constituion restoration act of 2004.

rs6

redshirt6   ·  November 20, 2008 9:37 AM

Well I fear the now mainstream Religious Radical Left Wing since they control all of Government.

More often than not these days I am really beginning to think that TV People create Ugly People.

Brainwashed and Oblivious.

syn   ·  November 20, 2008 12:44 PM

syn,

All I can say is that I find the overbearing attitude of many socons in the Republican Party off putting. And I voted straight Republican.

Also I have posted a number of bits in the last day or so on the Jewish attitude to abortion which might explain their reason for voting D. I know it is my 89 yo mom's reason.

Here is another guy who shares my attitude who did not vote R:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10976789

*

M. Simon   ·  November 20, 2008 8:42 PM

The 'oogedy-boogedy' was avoided in mainstream media and in the election in general. What the writer is refering to is not the average, conservative Christianity in the GOP, but the radical right wing movement that wants to replace the constitution with their interpretation of Old Testament law, including the public stoning of gays, adulterers, and recalcitrant children. A simple search on the following will produce tons of information about this extreme, militant form of Christianity to which the writer is refering: new apostolic reformation, third wave, latter day rain, dominionist theology, reconstructionist theology, "the family", constituion restoration act of 2004.

Yes. It is a branding problem.

The Rs need to make the nuts feel unwelcome in the Party. I have suggested championing Marijuana Legalization. It is a winner with 60% to 80% of the population depending on how the question is framed.

M. Simon   ·  November 20, 2008 8:49 PM

I read of this excessive fear of conservative republicans who are religious. I just don’t see the religious right as that dangerous to others. Perhaps it is the old WASP attitude that religion is not to be worn on the sleeve or discussed outside of church.

However I do see a constant stream of attacks like years ago the Washington Post calling those that believe in God stupid.

But the quote from a previous commenter that the religious right is “ But the radical right wing movement that wants to replace the constitution with their interpretation of Old Testament law, including the public stoning of gays, adulterers, and recalcitrant children” this is not something I have ever seen the religious right ever say or promote. Mostly the religious right does not want to feel they are freaks for believing in a more traditional lifestyle and family system.

So as an agnostic I don’t feel this fear of the religious right and have been more sympathetic to the attacks against them for the last 20 years. Now this latest attempt to run them out of the Republican Party is another example of an attack on them.

If the secular libertarian conservatives see that a belief in God is wrong then they really are the minority, as a majority of Americans so believe in God whether Republican or Democrat. So do the majority of blacks and Hispanics. This is an outlier position.

RAH   ·  November 20, 2008 10:37 PM

Perhaps it is the old WASP attitude that religion is not to be worn on the sleeve or discussed outside of church.

Now if only we could get a certain vocal segment of the Republican Party to follow that precept.

Which is why I ♥ Sarah'cudda. Alaskans had no idea about her religion until she got the VP nod. If only the whole party was as discreet, Republican might gather a few more votes.

M. Simon   ·  November 21, 2008 4:35 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits