It's Rove and Co. vs. Tea Party: Let the GOP civil war begin

[Martinus]

Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are.  Everyone else can be turned.  That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.

That's true. Gays will be first to jump ship the moment Republicans start seeing gay marriage as fait accompli and focus on being a party of low taxes.

Republicans, like Tories in the 90s, have become a "nasty party". They spew offensive stuff about gays, women, Latinos and other racial minorities, etc. It may be true that people tend to value economy over politics when it comes to voting, but there is a certain smell test barrier that one would not cross without feeling like a total sell out - the GOP vitriol against these groups makes it impossible for many of them to consider voting Republican.

Paradoxically, I think Republicans cling to this hate rhetorics against their political interest because this is something they actually believe. So, like Tories, they need generational change before they can change - which means they won't see a revival until 2020s.

[Martinus]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

I agree with Raz. 

They need a Cameron. But as the recent vote on gay marriage shows, the change of leadership may not be enough. I wonder if Cameron will survive - the best outcome would be if he was destroyed and tories banished back to their dark recesses, where the light of the electorate's approval does not shine (since I would prefer a lib-dem/labour government that does not tinker with the EU referendum bomb).

[Viking]

Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.

That is not a very revolutionary point of view

He's Canadian. They don't have revolutions. They fight The Power with attrition.

Queen: Do we still own that nation in North America?
Prime Minister: Yes, ma'am.
Queen: Why?
Prime Minister: Because we haven't gotten rid of them yet, and they haven't left on their own?
Queen: Hmm. I say we cut them loose.
Prime Minister: Very good, ma'am.
Canadians: We win!

I remember explaining to a canadian professor of education that Canada was still a monarchy. Don't think that would be the reaction. It would be more like

Canadians: WTF, we have a Queen?
British: No, she kicked you out, now you have to go and elect yourselves a president.
Canadians: Wait, WTF, we have to pick a president?
British: President Harper has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Canadians: Can we have "our" Queen back? Please? Pretty Please?

[Eddie Teach]

Why would a paternalist like Lieberman join the libertarian lite party?

[Martinus]

Why would a paternalist like Lieberman join the libertarian lite party?

I do not see mainstream Republicans as libertarians. Do you? 

[Eddie Teach]

I'm uncertain why they would want to peel off the social conservatives if they're not going to shift their platform away from it.

At any rate, Lieberman may be a hawk, but he's a lefty regarding the most fundamental issue, money.

[Martinus]

Both parties would be socially conservative, but you can go about it being modern and non-modern.

Most European countries have two parties like this. The French have UPM and Front Nationale. The British have Tories and UKIP. Poland has PO and PiS.

The former is still socially conservative, but presents a more modern, open, pro-economy focus and the latter is more religious social conservative with a mistrust of big business.

This allows the former to get voters from the centre that would not vote for a party that has the right wing religious conservatives in its ranks. The latter, at the same time, can cater to the conspiracy theory religious fundamentalist crowd without risking their ideological purity.

[Eddie Teach]

The establishment Republicans would have the same problem as they do now, they'd still depend on the more reactionary party for support. They'd still have to say things that might drive Berkuts away. A party based on religious social conservatism with a mistrust of big business(not sure how viable this is in US or other predominately Protestant nations) might even go into coalition with the establishment Democrats from time to time.

[Martinus]

The establishment Republicans would have the same problem as they do now, they'd still depend on the more reactionary party for support. They'd still have to say things that might drive Berkuts away. A party based on religious social conservatism with a mistrust of big business(not sure how viable this is in US or other predominately Protestant nations) might even go into coalition with the establishment Democrats from time to time.

I thought the Tea Party is pretty mistrustful of big business. 

It certainly has no love for Wall Street.

[Eddie Teach]

No more than the general public.

While it's popular for conservative politicians to tout their policies as being good for "small business" in the end it amounts to the same as being good for "big business".

[Admiral Yi]

I think you guys are defining base differently than me.

The base is people that can be counted on throughout the electoral process.  People who always vote in primaries and generals, people who volunteer for campaigns, people who put signs in their yards, people who man phone banks, people who attend rallies and donate money.

For the Democratic party, that group is *not* made up of statists.  Statists don't exist outside think tanks.

It's union members, blacks, professional women, and peaceniks.

[DGuller]

What about professional men?  A lot of professional men, especially on the young side, are likewise repulsed by Republican social policies.  Unless they're young professional men who are loners and have Asperger's, in which case they become Rothbardian Libertarians.

[Admiral Yi]

What about professional men?  A lot of professional men, especially on the young side, are likewise repulsed by Republican social policies.  Unless they're young professional men who are loners and have Asperger's, in which case they become Rothbardian Libertarians.

Not as jacked up as professional women are about Roe v. Wade, quotas, and political correctness laws.

[Razgovory]

I think you guys are defining base differently than me.

The base is people that can be counted on throughout the electoral process.  People who always vote in primaries and generals, people who volunteer for campaigns, people who put signs in their yards, people who man phone banks, people who attend rallies and donate money.

For the Democratic party, that group is *not* made up of statists.  Statists don't exist outside think tanks.

It's union members, blacks, professional women, and peaceniks.

What do you think the Republican base is?

[Admiral Yi]

What do you think the Republican base is?

Bible thumpers, gun nuts, and fat cats.