[Seer]

If romney is successful, and by the looks of it, he will be, will this mean the end for the Republican Party in America? It seems that the nation is slowly, but surely, moving in the direction of moderate politics, or center right to be precise. True conservatives like Newt Gingrich (when he's not the angry badger of course) and Ron Paul (say what you will, but he's been consistent) are going to be forgotten within the next ten years if this happens. What do you think?

[Fraqtive42]

If romney is successful, and by the looks of it, he will be, will this mean the end for the Republican Party in America? It seems that the nation is slowly, but surely, moving in the direction of moderate politics, or centre right to be precise. True conservatives like Newt Gingrich (when he's not the angry badger of course) and Ron Paul (say what you will, but he's been consistent) are going to be forgotten within the next ten years if this happens. What do you think?

What makes you say that American politics has been moving toward a more leftward position? I would say that American politics has been drifting constantly to the right over the past 40 years or so (as a result of globalization and the abandonment of centrist Keynesian policies). And Ron Paul is more like a libertarian conservative than a conservative (i.e. he does not support the enforcement of moral values by government, and adopts a farther right position than most conservatives).

[Seer]

What makes you say that American politics has been moving toward a more leftward position? I would say that American politics has been drifting constantly to the right over the past 40 years or so (as a result of globalization and the abandonment of centrist Keynesian policies). And Ron Paul is more like a libertarian conservative than a conservative (i.e. he does not support the enforcement of moral values by government, and adopts a farther right position than most conservatives).

The myth that America has been steadily moving right has been propagated by most media outlets and newspapers. If you look at the statistics, most Americans are center right or left, and a subtle shift is showing that more and more Americans identify with the now, "99%". What this means is that the Obama administration in the last 8-9 years has injected a new strain of "American Populism" into mainstream media, thought and discourse. Americans no longer see hard work, dedication and reward as the fruits of a good work ethic. They see it as a crime and something to be stripped away and distributed to the "underprivileged".

[Fraqtive42]

The myth that America has been steadily moving right has been propagated by most media outlets and newspapers. If you look at the statistics, most Americans are centre right or left, and a subtle shift is showing that more and more Americans identify with the now, "99%". What this means is that the Obama administration in the last 8-9 years has injected a new strain of "American Populism" into mainstream media, thought and discourse. Americans no longer see hard work, dedication and reward as the fruits of a good work ethic. They see it as a crime and something to be stripped away and distributed to the "underprivileged".

Yes, I understand that many citizens have a tendencey to adopt mainstream views, often independent of political figures (especially among the left, because there are relatively few leftist political figures in America). But this leaves out the parameter of governance. You'll find by looking at the Democratic party that these officials support broadly Keynesian economic policies (Dennis Kucinich is an exception, but he is one of the very few politicians that fits a center-left political mold). Some of the more 'Blue-Dog' Democrats will often share more in common fiscally with the Republicans than with Democrats of their own party.

Also note that Keynesianism is broadly centrist when offered the widest range of political views (i.e. from communism to libertarianism). This basically means that the Democrats are a relatively centrist party (contrary to popular American belief, where they are perceived as center-left). Ask any European on this forum (an international forum) and you will find that they will give Obama the record of a moderate conservative. It is additionally undeniable that economic policies have drifted right after America has abandoned centrism with regard to economics. Globalization and the reduction of trade barriers has doubtlessly led to the liberalization of economies in many western democracies (the social-democratic parties losing traction is another example).

I also want to see you give proof of your assertion that the Obama administration has inserted left-wing populism into the media, subsequently brainwashing the American people and ruining the American economy.

[Seer]

I'd really not try to compare politics of europe, to the us if you please. The political makeup and overall collective experiences of my country makes it difficult to show contrast in the american political spectrum when you compare Obama ( which in my country, is not seen as a moderate -- by either side ) to a moderate politician. This often leads to a biased and mostly inaccurate representation of politics in the us.

As for the media, subtle phrases like "fair share", the "1%", and "piece of the pie" are keywords in an expanding vocabulary devised by most democrats in the us. These slowly change the mindset away from natural evolutions of capitalism (boom to bust, the cycles, etc), to a deliberative targetting of corporations and people as the root of the problem.

Edit: I just saw you are from Virginia. May I ask why European politics even matters in this thread?

[Fraqtive42]

I'd really not try to compare politics of europe, to the us if you please. The political makeup and overall collective experiences of my country makes it difficult to show contrast in the political spectrum when you compare Obama ( which in my country, is not seen as a moderate -- by either side ) to a moderate politician. This often leads to a biased and mostly inaccurate representation of politics in the us.

Politics in the U.S. is biased and inaccurate to start with. The two-party system puts everything in a binary. This way the Democrats and Republicans will be viewed as center-left and center-right respectively, regardless of policy drift. Economic liberalization has indeed caused a general rightward drift of American politics, and the Democrats have been adjusted as center-left regardless of the drift in their position. This makes the entire spectrum in America very narrow, especially taking in buzzwords such as 'socialist' that are used pejoratively against anyone who is slightly outside of the percieved political spectrum. Obama would also not be regarded as an extremist by the Democratic party; people like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders would be perceived as the extremists. One is basically a democratic socialist, and one is basically a social democrat. I have no idea why Obama is clustered with these people; his policies are too far right of theirs to be put in the same group.

As for the media, subtle phrases like "fair share", the "1%", and "piece of the pie" are keywords in an expanding vocabulary devised by most democrats in the us. These slowly change the mindset away from natural evolutions of capitalism (boom to bust, the cycles, etc), to a deliberative targetting of corporations and people as the root of the problem.

Two words: Fox News.

Edit: I just saw you are from Virginia. May I ask why European politics even matters in this thread

To make a demonstration of how depicting Obama on the far-left, even in an American context, is grossly inaccurate.

[Rich]

I'd really not try to compare politics of europe, to the us if you please. The political make up and overall collective amnesia of my country makes it difficult

Fixed!

[Seer]

Really now, this debate is about the GOP and it's ability to survive if Romney wins the nomination. Do you think that Reagan conservatives will be able to retake the party from more moderate conservatives. Agree or disagree?

[Rainbow Crow]

I honestly think this is the end of the GOP either way.

Reagan reassembled a sinking ship, then Bush Jr. lead the party to a fracturing as bad or worse than it had been before Reagan showed up.

Is another Reagan going to save them? Huntsman failed in large part because he didn't have money. Romney was basically a liberal who flip flopped into a less charismatic Jon Huntsman, but Romney clobbered Huntsman. Santorum is like a young Gingrich who hasn't left his wife, but he doesn't have cash, so the ones not going for Romney go for Gingrich. The endorsement of the country's religious leaders seemed to do nothing at all for Santorum.

It's as if Republicans just decide to follow whoever has the most cash, and this greatly limits their playing field. I can't see them recovering any time soon with that kind of attitude, rather they will probably go down hill from here no matter who their nominee is.

[Takkon]

I don't understand. Why is it that everyone always suggests that the two major parties are finally starting to fracture? The Republicans are as organized as they ever were, it's just that in general if you want to win a presidential bid in America, you do it when there is no incumbent. Those that run during a year where there is one do so at their own risk, and thus the bar for running becomes lower because all the candidates that are prime picks don't want to run. Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, Giuliani, all fairly popular amongst the general public yet they did not throw their hat into the ring. It could very well be that objectively, a 40 percent approval rating is not a bad position to run a reelection bid from, and in general you get the nod once and if you lose, you don't get it again.

[Rainbow Crow]

There's a lot to it. Demographically, the Republican party is the party of "old white people" and their reaction to losing power has been to become far more conservative. If that trend continues, then they will continue to decline. I've also never heard anyone suggest that the Democrats are fracturing. The Republicans have been stuck within long periods of decline in the past as well. It seems a very real possibility that it could happen again.

[Social_Critic]

I don't see how the Obama admnistration could have been injecting populism into the media when President Obama didn't get elected until November 2008.

Now that I got that out of the way, it seems to me the GOP could have anybody run for President and it will remain a viable party. I used to be Republican, backed the party candidates with cash, and I left in 2000, but I could vote Republican again if the GOP weren't controlled by yahoos who stand and cheer when GOP presidential candidates spout the most incredible non sense.

When we couple the weird garbage coming out of candidates' mouths with the party's behavior during the Bush years (worthless wars, running up a huge deficit, human rights abuses), and the stances they have such as attacking evolution and advocating their particular religion, I have to consider the GOP to be so toxic I'd rather vote for just about anybody else right now.

However, I'm old, and I have seen the GOP change over the years, so I imagine they can change back eventually. I do worry as to whether there will be a country left for anybody with common sense to rule in 20 years. So the question maybe should be framed, will there be a US worth living in for the GOP to run in the future? I''m already living outside the US because I cant stand the dialogue and the way the culture is evolving, and I suspect pretty soon there will be forces emerging to split the country up. And i'm not kidding, I don't see how anybody in their right mind would want to live close to people who elect somebody like Rick Perry for governor, or think Fox News is a great news source.

[Rainbow Crow]

I seriously wonder sometimes if the strange way the Republican party acts lately isn't because the Baby Boomers are growing senile. Their ranting is not unlike that of a demented person. Practically no one under 40 takes the Tea Party yahoos who talk about civil war seriously, and those who do discuss it are generally too old to fight for their imaginary causes.

If I weren't a professional I'd make Youtube videos working this joke because the best jokes have a bit of truth in them. Then again, maybe I could just wear a fake beard and no one would recognize me...

[Social_Critic]

Blue Puppy, my senility has nothing to do with the fact that Republicans don't drink tea.

I am watching the USA as if it were a large bacterium, and from my ommniscient position I see this bacterium dividing into parts, which drift away peacefully even though all of them have nuclear weapons and share a (VERY LARGE) common debt to the People's Republic of China which they must pay getting dressed as cowboys and cowgirls who entertain Chinese tourist hordes visiting the country for a true taste of Americana, which of course includes blondes in sheer dresses having their skirts blown up by fans placed under their feet by the capitalists who own such tourist attractions.

It is with great regret that I inform all of you that it is possible to prove, using the most dense mathematics which I formulated after drinking a quart of Southern Comfort, that what we know as USA can not possibly hold together if the state of Texas fails to accept Barak Obama as the rightful ruler of the whole country. This of course leads me to the conclude that Texas will be returned to Mexico, as it should, because after all it was land the Mexicans stole from the Indians and it's rightfully theirs. And when Texas goes, then the West Coast states, fully inhabited by commies and other unstable people, will sally forth and declare themselves the People's Republic of Something Else, rolling the avalanche down the tubes until there's no country left and the Chinese are forced to name six different ambassadors to the six capitals resulting from such a catastrophe.

The only positive thing about this whole mess is that Canada will no longer fear a US invasion, and the UK will, at last, be free to join the French in a true union of peace loving, wine sipping, and cheese eating peoples.

[Drlee]

Not the end of the Republican party by a longshot. I have heard that before several times. First when Nixon was forced from office, then when Bush I was defeated and last when McCain was trounced by Obama. The republican party will move closer to the center. In fact, most would say Romney IS closer to the center. The party has changed before and will change again.

The people who are claiming conservatism today are not the conservatives of most of the party's histoy. The mostly white male, Christian fundimentalists and tea party morons who are pushing the party right now are declining in numbers. They will not hold political sway much longer. It is important to remember there are many of us alive today who remember when the republican party was a REAL libertarian party. (Please do not insert some idiotic economic definition of libertarian here.) I voted for a republican president who sent legislation to congress for national health care. I watched as the republicans led the fight for integration in the south. I remeber the US presidential candidate who called for strengthening of social security and who favored allowing gays in the military.

At the risk of making yet another ageist comment, I would encourage younger people to take a longer view of politics. Historically there has never been a far right party in America. And there still isn't. And before you mention GWBII and the current rogues gallery as a possible exception let me remind my fellow conservatives that he (Bush) was the author of the largest federal social welfare program since 1965. A bill I might add that compared to Obama Care makes the republicans look like liberals. Obama care (according to the CBO) is predicted to reduce the deficit by $114 billion in its first 10 years and 1.2 trillion in the first 20. This compared to Bush's unfunded social spending program that is estimated to cost more than half a trillion dollars in the first 10.

I know this is the conservative forum and I am a conservative. Unlike many who post here I do not think that GWB II was a conservative nor was he much of a republican. He trounced on social liberties, started two foreign wars and spent money in a fashion that would have made FDR, Johnson and Clinton choke on their checkbooks.

My version of the republican party (the one I joined as a junior member in 1963) was a party driven by social libertarian, small government, compassionate, American exceptionalists. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to integrate schools, Nixon proposed national health care, got us out of Vietnam and even imposed wage and price controls to control inflation. This new batch of mouth-breathers is nothing like that. What do they talk about? Reducing the deficit? Hardly. Their idea of reducing the deficit is to tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. That is some wierd economic theory but it has absolutely nothing to do with conservative ideals. Barry Goldwater said this:

Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?

Is that not Bush in spades? He spends half a trillion on perscription drugs and fights two wars without raising one red cent in revenue to pay for them? Goldwater would be spinning in his grave. Now we have these idiots running who are continuing the fraud by telling the American people we can pay out bills without raising taxes? There is not one single economist of any stature who thinks that we can cut our way out of the deficit. We have to grow the economy and raise taxes. Even if one granted that we could do it by growing the economy we are never going to do it without stimulating the shit out of the economy.

So Obama says we need to reduce our thirst for foreign oil and these dipshits call him a socialist for imposing gas mileage limits on cars. Nevermind that if we could wean ourselves from foreign oil we would add a quarter of a trillion dollar stimulus to our economy every year.

The problem is that we are name calling and not debating. I am called a liberal everytime I propose that we might raise some revenue in addition to cutting spending. I propose to stimulate the economy to the tune of 750 million a year by going to universal health care and I am called a socialist. It is absurd.

The republican party may go down the tubes but it won't be over the debate between far right and moderate. It will be because there are far to many people in the party who are just stupid as fuck.