Future of the GOP

[SingingAnalyst]

The GOP has seemed to be on its deathbed many times in the past: after the 1936 elections, after Truman won in 1948 and the Dems took back Congress, after the 1964 elections, after Watergate and the 1974 elections, and more recently (and now).

After the 1936 elections, FDR over-extended his hand with a court-packing idea, resulting in big GOP gains in 1938 and the GOP nearly retaking Congress in 1942 (in the middle of WWII). After Truman was re-elected, his popularity dropped, reaching 22% at one point, an all-time Gallup low; four years later, the GOP swept the Presidency and Congress. In the mid-1970s, the Democrats were riding high, but by 1980 they again lost the Presidency and the Senate.

In 1952, Eisenhower added a full 10 points to Dewey's 1948 performance, appealing hugely to independents, to win a landslide, which he would repeat in 1956. In 1966, the GOP made big gains in Congress and, of course, won the Presidency in 1968. In 1980, Reagan, with some help from John Anderson, soundly defeated Carter, the first and only time since 1888 the GOP has defeated a Democratic incumbent President and perhaps the only time it ever did so while winning the PV.

After 2012, no one saw Trump coming, but of course, he did, four years later.

What now? Political views have hardened considerably since all of the above examples, and the demographic changes all favor Democrats. What does the GOP, which has won the PV only once since 1988 (and rather narrowly at that), do?

Option 1: return to Romney - McCain type nominees, hoping to win back Oakland County, MI; Orange County, CA; etc. Repudiate Trumpism and stand for mostly free markets, perhaps downplaying social conservatism and First and Second Amendment issues.

Option 2: double down on the politics of resentment and alienation, like George Wallace, maybe Ross Perot, and definitely Donald Trump did. Appeal to the WWC against the "elites", ringing up 90%+ majorities in white, rural, southern, formerly Democratic counties while losing whatever little support remains in places like San Francisco and Manhattan.

Option 3: Stress 1st and 2nd Amendment issues, perhaps appealing to the Gary Johnson or Jo Jorgensen voter. Admit they were wrong about SSM, and clarify that small business and religious-based charities (not just churches) should be exempt from going against their religious beliefs. Stress self-help, individual initiative, entrepreneurship, while emphasizing the diversity of the American experience.

Option 4: Risk alienating some WWC votes and make a full-throated outreach to Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. Point out how Democratic policies have failed those in large cities and rural, Black belt areas alike.

Option 5: Do nothing, and watch their electoral success fade with each passing election. The Democrats would have only the Greens, Libertarians, and a smattering of left- and right-wing minor parties to keep them honest.

Well? I vote Options 3 and 4 as the best thing for the party and the country. I see Option 1 as a lost cause, and I would not want to live in a one-party state so I reject Option 5.

[Alcibiades]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

[SingingAnalyst]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

I agree, it will be hard for many, but hopefully not all. I think we both agree that progress is possible, often incremental, and very real. In 1957, Sen. Strom Thurmond (then a Dixiecrat Democrat) said "when the Constitution comes between me and the virtue of white women in South Carolina, I say 'to hell with the Constitution' ". (Yes, he really said that). Twenty-six years later, he voted for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday (after opposing it six years earlier), and by 1991, he voted Yes to confirm a Black male Supreme Court justice who was married to a white woman. Whatever you think of Clarence Thomas, all these represent progress. I suspect many will go along with these changes, not enthusiastically, but out of a sense that the GOP is still more in tune with their way of thinking than the Democrats.

[EastwoodS]

If anyone picks 5, don’t expect for anyone to take your posts seriously.

[MATTROSE94]

Doubling down on right wing populism+reaching out to African Americans and Hispanics. I also think that emphasizing Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) as a component of right wing populism is a winning strategy for the Republicans.

[Mr.Phips]

Keep up the populism while dropping economic elitism (I.e. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan).  Basically keep Trump’s general policy stances without his destructive personality.

[Mr.Phips]

Doubling down on right wing populism+reaching out to African Americans and Hispanics. I also think that emphasizing Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) as a component of right wing populism is a winning strategy for the Republicans.

Basically this while at the same time giving up on unpopular economic stances that get them in trouble (Ryan budget, SS privatization, tax cuts for rich, Obamacare repeal).

[Squidward500]

Honestly, the best way forward is Trumpism without Twitter and abrasiveness. If trump wasn’t a prolific tweeter and didn’t pick pointless fights, he would’ve probably won

[bagelman]

The Republicans are far from any danger. To say they're on their deathbed after this Presidential loss is a joke.

Trumpism with a human face can keep WCWs and slowly expand with minorities. They have a winning coalition, they were just too outlandish for many educated voters.

However they have a huge opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot in 2024 if they think they can hold this coalition if they run to the right on economics in the style of Romney/Ryan.

[Pick Up the Phone]

I have my doubts that Trumpism without Trump can work. I would even claim that Trumpism was so successful because of (rather than despite) Trump - and that a 'sane' Trumpist candidate would have a hard time to attract many of the apolitical voters who went to the polls in 2016 and 2020. These people are not interested in economic populism of anything the like. They do not care about policy. They care about Trump and nothing else.

I also see no room for the GOP to aggressively go after minority votes without antagonizing much of their base.

Option 1 it is. Perhaps in a slightly modified version but idiotic populism and white grievance politics are unlikely to work in the long run.

[Frodo]

They will likely try Option 2 for one more election cycle (2024), milking the white vote for every last drop before it becomes electorally unviable.  If they lose again (and I mean in the real world), they might finally take their 2013 autopsy to heart and try Option 4 in earnest beginning in the 2028 presidential cycle at the earliest.    

[dw93]

Short term (2022, 2024, maybe 2026, 2028): Option 2 with a pinch of option 4.
Long Term (2030 and beyond): Option 3 with regard to Social Issues, 2 with regard to economics, with a pinch more of option 4.

[Agonized-Statism]

Weird combination of the above. I think the populists will have influence going forward via Trump's machine (perpetuated by whatever news network he ends up making), but the warhawks have always had some kind of presence in both parties and the libertarians will continue backing what they see as the party of smaller government. The GOP is headed back into the wilderness because of its factionalism, but as time goes on the lines will blur between those factions and they'll eventually put together a winning platform and coalition again. The Democrats' coalition, while big enough to secure hegemony at this point, is a house of cards. As I've said in other threads: gentrifiers and gentrified. One will eventually break from the party.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

I have my doubts that Trumpism without Trump can work. I would even claim that Trumpism was so successful because of (rather than despite) Trump - and that a 'sane' Trumpist candidate would have a hard time to attract many of the apolitical voters who went to the polls in 2016 and 2020. These people are not interested in economic populism of anything the like. They do not care about policy. They care about Trump and nothing else.

Which doesn't mean they won't try it. Trump and his heirs will stay as kingmakers so Trumpism is here to stay. It is another question whether the general electorate would approve of this.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Option 2: double down on the politics of resentment and alienation, like George Wallace, maybe Ross Perot, and definitely Donald Trump did. Appeal to the WWC against the "elites", ringing up 90%+ majorities in white, rural, southern, formerly Democratic counties while losing whatever little support remains in places like San Francisco and Manhattan.

Option 4: Risk alienating some WWC votes and make a full-throated outreach to Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. Point out how Democratic policies have failed those in large cities and rural, Black belt areas alike.

[DC Al Fine]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

Soon the GOP will be more economically left-wing than the Dems and the force to counter the neolibs. They wouldn't have to change colours, they're already red. I suspect we're seeing the next big re-alignment soon. They should just be socialist without ever using the word, basically like a mix of populist socially conservative social democrats or populist socially conservative christian democrats (while staying anti-war and anti-globalist), but be less childish and more accepting of blacks, hispanics and LGTBQ's.

Anyway, Trump's four years was necessary to destroy the neocons, a greater force of evil than trumpism. And i'm glad that W. Bush is still alive to see what is happening now.

[RINO Tom]

^ The GOP will not “soon be more economically left” than the Democrats, LMAO.  Keep dreaming.

[Tollen]

There's really not much difference between these things.

You get shades Trumpism from national level Republucabs as far back as Herbert Hoover circulating photographs of Al Smith dancing with black women. Nay further - there was a Republican Southern Strategy from about 1880 on the Stae level (the lily-whites etc.).

Reagan let himself be read as a libertarian ideologue ("To me, the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism") despite not being particularly libertarian about anything.

Trump didn't "destroy the neocons"; he elevated them to power and then shadowboxed them in public to retain his outsider appeal. None of this is real.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a corporate brand. This is all it is. It represents nothing.

[neostassenite31]

There's really not much difference between these things.

You get shades Trumpism from national level Republucabs as far back as Herbert Hoover circulating photographs of Al Smith dancing with black women. Nay further - there was a Republican Southern Strategy from about 1880 on the Stae level (the lily-whites etc.).

Reagan let himself be read as a libertarian ideologue ("To me, the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism") despite not being particularly libertarian about anything.

Trump didn't "destroy the neocons"; he elevated them to power and then shadowboxed them in public to retain his outsider appeal. None of this is real.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a corporate brand. This is all it is. It represents nothing.

That's a pretty activistic way of looking at America's political parties. 

[RINO Tom]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

[Alcibiades]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

I would add that the 2000s-brand of Republican/evangelical social conservatism is, beyond abortion, also pretty much dead now.

The SoCons/RR spent the best part of the late 90s and noughties championing opposition to gay marriage as their cause célèbre, all to have it end in total and utter failure, with one of the most rapid turnarounds in public opinion on any issue in American history.

[Tollen]

There's really not much difference between these things.

You get shades Trumpism from national level Republucabs as far back as Herbert Hoover circulating photographs of Al Smith dancing with black women. Nay further - there was a Republican Southern Strategy from about 1880 on the Stae level (the lily-whites etc.).

Reagan let himself be read as a libertarian ideologue ("To me, the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism") despite not being particularly libertarian about anything.

Trump didn't "destroy the neocons"; he elevated them to power and then shadowboxed them in public to retain his outsider appeal. None of this is real.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a corporate brand. This is all it is. It represents nothing.

That's a pretty activistic way of looking at America's political parties. 

What do you mean?

[OSR stands with Israel]

^ The GOP will not “soon be more economically left” than the Democrats, LMAO.  Keep dreaming.

Yah Josh Hawley is still to the right of every major Democrat on economics

[Tollen]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

There was not much intellectualism behind the Constitution. It was almost entirely a knee jerk response to the uprisings that followed the end of the Revolutionary War. The sole object of the document was to facilitate Hamiltonian capitalism in the face of popular defiance.