Which way GOP?

[SingingAnalyst]

Trump's 2016 victory notwithstanding, the GOP appears to be in some trouble.

In the last 3 Presidential elections, the age gradient was very steep, with Democrats winning the lion's share of votes of Americans under 40, even as minor parties did relatively well with this group (in 2016). They lost the governor's mansion in NJ as well as in VA, where the Dem's percentage increased over 2013. They lost a US Senate election in AL, of all places (with 60-61% of those under 45 voting Dem, even as only 40% of those over 65 did so).

Just as same-sex marriage has become the law of the land, other things once unimaginable are likely to become staples of American political society if the Dems take both houses of Congress in 2018 (which many people see as likely): free community college, a Muslim house caucus, etc.

I see the GOP responding in one of three ways: (1) digging in their heels and becoming even more reactionary and conservative; (2) fully embracing neoliberalism, almost libertarianism (free speech, the right to bear arms) while portraying the Dems as subordinating these freedoms to social causes; (3) something in between that "straddles the fence", so to speak.

I think (1) is a lost cause, and I'm not sure there are enough forward thinking people in the party to do (2). But can they do (3)? It may take someone with the rhetorical skill of Ronald Reagan to do this; is there anyone like this in the party?

I think the GOP can survive if they are smart: if they admit that outlawing abortion outright would never work, and that it should remain legal "for the tough cases", while allowing states to impose moderate restrictions on particularly late-term elective abortions; if they embrace SSM, while supporting the right of individual business proprietors (but not corporations, even small ones) to follow their consciences; if they emphasize pro-business and pro-growth economic policies without alienating workers, especially working single moms; etc.

Discuss.

[GlobeSoc]

They will do 1 in the short and medium term, 3 in the long term, and 2 in the very long term

[I’m not Stu]

They will do 1 in the short and medium term, 3 in the long term, and 2 in the very long term

Exactly

[Canis]

they will be doing 1 until they blown out of the water in 18 and 20 then they will try 3 and with the moderate candidates winning and the conservatives losing they will eventually adopt 2

[PoliticalShelter]

Anyone on atlas who seriously thinks the GOP is going to become libertarian needs to have their head examined.

[Burke859]

I see the GOP responding in one of three ways: (1) digging in their heels and becoming even more reactionary and conservative; (2) fully embracing neoliberalism, almost libertarianism (free speech, the right to bear arms) while portraying the Dems as subordinating these freedoms to social causes; (3) something in between that "straddles the fence", so to speak.

While my preferred Republican future is something along the lines of what a President Nikki Haley would do to the party (and the country), I suspect that the GOP will continue to go the other way, i.e., fusion between conservatism and the interests/ideology of the WWC.

So I guess I am predicting a variation of (1) --- that the GOP will become more conservative, but with the caveat that not all conservatism is created equal.  During the waning Dubya years, the conservative revival was supposed to come in the form of the Republican Study Committee, a group heralded by Mike Pence and, yes, Jeff Flake, who is now considered a RINO.  Those conservatives quickly became big-government statists in the wake of the Tea Party and with the rise of Sarah Palin (who was probably the precursor to Trumpism).  And then Trumpism itself dumped the requirement that evangelical Christianity be part and parcel of the new conservative counterculture and instead created a hybrid of Palin and Perot with a Brooklyn accent.

So I don't think it's so much that the GOP will move farther to the right as much as it is that what constitutes the right will continue to change over time.  We now have a GOP base that is supportive of both Medicaid cuts and trade restrictions, and that views cultural issues as immigration and American exceptionalism instead of abortion and same sex marriage.  On a pure numbers level, it's not a bad trade-off.  An anti-NAFTA GOP could possibly win Maine and Minnesota.  That would have been unheard of just five years ago.  And there's some speculation that "young" Americans, i.e., Generation Z, might be more Trumpy than people expect, especially the white males of that generation, the first of whom will register to vote this year...

[SingingAnalyst]

I see the GOP responding in one of three ways: (1) digging in their heels and becoming even more reactionary and conservative; (2) fully embracing neoliberalism, almost libertarianism (free speech, the right to bear arms) while portraying the Dems as subordinating these freedoms to social causes; (3) something in between that "straddles the fence", so to speak.

So I don't think it's so much that the GOP will move farther to the right as much as it is that what constitutes the right will continue to change over time.

Good point. As recently as 2004, support for same-sex civil unions was considered liberal. Today, one who agrees with the Supreme Court's decision on SSM, believes county clerks are wrong to deny same-sex marriage licenses, and opposes the rights of even small companies to discriminate against members of the LGBT community, while allowing sole proprietors and nonprofits to do so--may well be considered "right-wing" in some circles. The GOP can thus take a position that, while not strictly "libertarian", nevertheless would seem to maximize freedom of conscience.

Otherwise, I agree that (illegal) immigration and American exceptionalism will eclipse abortion and SSM in the GOP mind, and perhaps have already.

[I’m not Stu]

The GOP is not becoming pro-working class. The GOP is currently doubling down on evangelicalism, especially by nominating Roy Moore. I think (1) for now, but it won't be successful. (2) probably in the long term.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP will lose with 1, they cannot do 2 because there base composition does not allow for it and 3 is splitting the difference between two impossibilities.


Parties evolve within the comfort zone of their present composition. That is why the GOP is now hostile to free trade again, after 40 years of the opposite position.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I see the GOP responding in one of three ways: (1) digging in their heels and becoming even more reactionary and conservative; (2) fully embracing neoliberalism, almost libertarianism (free speech, the right to bear arms) while portraying the Dems as subordinating these freedoms to social causes; (3) something in between that "straddles the fence", so to speak.

So I don't think it's so much that the GOP will move farther to the right as much as it is that what constitutes the right will continue to change over time.

Good point. As recently as 2004, support for same-sex civil unions was considered liberal. Today, one who agrees with the Supreme Court's decision on SSM, believes county clerks are wrong to deny same-sex marriage licenses, and opposes the rights of even small companies to discriminate against members of the LGBT community, while allowing sole proprietors and nonprofits to do so--may well be considered "right-wing" in some circles. The GOP can thus take a position that, while not strictly "libertarian", nevertheless would seem to maximize freedom of conscience.

Otherwise, I agree that (illegal) immigration and American exceptionalism will eclipse abortion and SSM in the GOP mind, and perhaps have already.

GOP belief in American excpetionalism actually hit a peak in the Bush years .



American exceptionalism has a lot more in common with Neo-Conservatism than Trumpism .

[Orser67]

In 2013, the RNC did an "autopsy" that called for embracing immigration reform and urged the party to rely less on old white men. 3 years later, Trump won the presidency, relying on a coalition that was whiter and older than ever. I think that Trump's victory probably destroyed any chance of major Republican reforms in the medium term, which in turn will leave the Republicans at a major disadvantage in the next several presidential elections (like the Democrats from 1968-1988).

I expect that in 20 years, after the Baby Boomers have started dying out en masse, a new generation of GOP leaders will come into power and win over moderate whites and non-whites dismayed by the Democratic coalition's increasing liberalism.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If the GOP gave up on abortion, millions of Christians would give up on the GOP (besides, it's a winning issue)

[SingingAnalyst]

If the GOP gave up on abortion, millions of Christians would give up on the GOP (besides, it's a winning issue)

Point well taken, but I'm not sure continuing to stand firm against late-term abortions (in all but the most extreme cases), public funding of elective abortions, and any requirement that insurance companies fund elective abortions under the ACA, while admitting that a total legal ban on abortion will never come to pass (let alone work), and knowing full well that rich people with the right connections were always able to obtain abortions even before Roe, while helping to create a "culture of life" that supports childbearing and adoption, constitutes "giving up" on abortion.

Also I don't think they'd lose that many votes. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act; GOP platforms since then have not called for its repeal, yet white voters in the deep South still vote overwhelmingly Republican.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the GOP gave up on abortion, millions of Christians would give up on the GOP (besides, it's a winning issue)

Point well taken, but I'm not sure continuing to stand firm against late-term abortions (in all but the most extreme cases), public funding of elective abortions, and any requirement that insurance companies fund elective abortions under the ACA, while admitting that a total legal ban on abortion will never come to pass (let alone work), and knowing full well that rich people with the right connections were always able to obtain abortions even before Roe, while helping to create a "culture of life" that supports childbearing and adoption, constitutes "giving up" on abortion.

Also I don't think they'd lose that many votes. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act; GOP platforms since then have not called for its repeal, yet white voters in the deep South still vote overwhelmingly Republican.

There is a big difference there.

Also, the GOP has not really lost much on the abortion issue, save for when people were nominated who opposed the big three exceptions and then tried to justify it like Akin and Mourdoch and ran into trouble.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In 2013, the RNC did an "autopsy" that called for embracing immigration reform and urged the party to rely less on old white men. 3 years later, Trump won the presidency, relying on a coalition that was whiter and older than ever. I think that Trump's victory probably destroyed any chance of major Republican reforms in the medium term, which in turn will leave the Republicans at a major disadvantage in the next several presidential elections (like the Democrats from 1968-1988).

I expect that in 20 years, after the Baby Boomers have started dying out en masse, a new generation of GOP leaders will come into power and win over moderate whites and non-whites dismayed by the Democratic coalition's increasing liberalism.

Parties evolve within the comfort zone of their present composition. That is why the GOP is now hostile to free trade again, after 40 years of the opposite position.

That is because that reform proposed is merely what the donors have been pushing for years. But the truth of the matter is that the neoliberal paradigm of free trade and lax immigration policies are not within that comfort zone.

Were it not for the influence of money, it would be far easier to sell to Republicans an increase in the minimum wage than it would be to sell comprehensive immigration reform.

[Tekken_Guy]

Option 1. Right now they want to appeal to Trump's base for purposes of party unity, despite mass disagreements with him. Option 2 doesn't really fit the views of the GOP mainstream let alone the Trump wing. The last option will just cause more division.

[mvd10]

Option 3. Donors will have to accept they're not going to get mass immigration I suppose, but they'll comply since Democrats will veer sharply to the left. Most white suburbans probably will return after someone sane takes over (if someone sane takes over), but the suburbs as a whole won't be as Republican because of changing demographics. Democrats will continue to have an advantage with the most educated voters, Republicans will continue to have an advantage with the wealthiest voters. The GOP will have a tough period in the 20s and 30s, but eventually political parties adapt and the American electorate won't accept 16 years of 1-party rule unless exceptional things happen.