Fundamental flaws in the Republican Party

[tzor]

Since people were apparently complaining about the lack of political threads (jk) I decided I would post something I recently published on gather. Actually it's not really "political" but "organizational" with the organization being a political party that just can't get their act together. Enjoy. Who knows, you might even agree with me.

I live in what should be a red area in the blue state of New York. What I see around me I can see at all levels within local, county and state; one can even see reflections elsewhere in the nation. Simply put, the Republican Party has several fundamental flaws that will forever doom it unless corrected.


Number 1: Getting the message out: It is nice to know that the party has somewhat discovered the 1990’s and the use of email, although it is only being used at the state level in the past year and it is still not used at the county and town levels. Yes, it is nice that we are only two decades behind the times! Blogging has almost gotten old fashioned compared to the Facebook, Twitter, and even Foursquare people out there who no longer communicate through email anymore. When I get a important news item I want to tweet out the link, but I can’t do that if the only medium is the email.


Number 2: Getting the people out: Democrats do a good job at getting their people out. They do a good job at old-fashioned reaching out to their members. This has the effect of them getting a pulse on the situation and what is needed to correct problems. In a recent local election it seemed that no one in the party was even aware of the negative attitudes of the candidate among the people; no one was aware of the lack of campaign signs in key areas of the voting district. In short, no one in the party knew that at best this was going to be a hard race and at worst it was going to be a bloodbath. It turned out to be the later and everyone in authority was “surprised” at the result.


Number 3: Singing from the same Hymnal: Democrats love to sing in perfect unison; in fact it sounds like an echo chamber when you hear the various Democrats. Republicans all seem to be singing different songs in different keys all at the same time. There is no “message” because each Republican drowns out the message of the other. You would think that having a town board of five Republicans would be a good thing, right? No, because there are now five different voices, each one wanting something different and throwing road blocks against the members of their own party! (At least with a 3 – 2 split, the Democrats were united and the Republicans were forced to be united to get anything done.) It’s even worse when you get to Congress.


That is three strikes and we are out. It is why we have a Democratic governor (who wants to take away all our guns). It is why we still have a Democratic senator. It is why we have a Democratic county executive. It is why the county legislature now has a veto proof majority of Democrats (against their Democratic county executive).

Yet at all levels of the party you hear “everything is coming up roses.” They keep finding success in every electoral failure. That’s because their jobs are secure … for now.

[notyou2]

Has anyone else noticed the lack of threads about the US political parties?

Do you want one? Because I really don't.

Well perhaps not; I'm just too lazy to post a "Sequestration ... bring it on baby" thread.

Or "Carl Rove's war with the tea party or how the RINO DINOSAURS became extinct."

You lied. Go say 107,654,379,235 Hail Mary's.

[BigBallinStalin]

Republicans don't want to change marketing strategies by adopting and continuing to adopt a more Tea Party-esque stance, since they probably perceive that this would create obligations that can't be synced with their current obligations to more organized special interest groups.

Republicans need to make a better case about good intentions leading to bad outcomes--a general skepticism against government which is necessary for cutting down the misleading attempts of Democrats appealing to young people's good intentions with emotion-laden arguments.

Stop becoming so hypocritical about spending cuts by generally supporting boosting defense. It's counterproductive.


That's off the top of my head, so I didn't spend much time clarifying this or that and blah blah blah.
Republicans need to figure out which target market is their most profitable, and then change their platform accordingly--while compensating for the loss in voters due to changing that platform. Then again, that loss may not matter because "if you don't vote Republican, then the Democrats win!" is a compelling enough argument for most.

tl;dr Republicans need to stop being curmudgeonly white men.

[Lootifer]

[thegreekdog]

Wow. I actually don't agree with any of your points. And I think the reason I don't agree is your #3.

Basically you have a number of different groups under one tent whose most important viewpoint (or viewpoints) are at odds. Group (1) (the "Christian Coalition") is made up of the super social conservatives. These folks tend to be white, evangelical Christians who are in favor of government regulation of things like abortion. Group (2) is made up of the stalwart old-school Republicans (the "Compassionate Conservatives"). They want to spend lots of money, mostly on defense, and don't give a whit about social issues, but will pander to get themselves elected. Group (3) (the "Tea Party") are the Tea Party Repbulicans who don't fit in with Group (1) because they aren't social conservatives. A small, but growing, minority of Republicans fit into this category. Groups (1) and (2) can get along. Group (3) can't get along with either Group (1) or Group (2). And when the major issue right now and for the past eight years or so is government spending, Group (3) is growing. Group (2) has to pander to Group (3) now, and, unfortunately, they are having trouble lying well enough to do it.

I think the Christian Coalition and the Tea Party do a great job of getting the message out via technology (your #1) and getting the message out via their "grass roots" (your #2).

The problem with the Republican Party right now is that it cannot embrace one of these groups of constituents. On a state and local level, the Republicans are doing quite well actually, thanks in large part to the Tea Party. It's only at a federal level where they are having major problems and that is because, again, the Tea Party is banging their drums the loudest and are being ignored or lied to by the Compassionate Conservatives.

So I blame the Tea Party for existing in the first place which puts pressure on the Compassionate Conservatives. I blame the Compassionate Conservatives for attempting to make the "cut spending" issue their own when they have no intention of cutting spending. And I blame the Christian Coalition for hanging on to outdated social issues.

tl;dr - The Republican party is too divided to succeed right now.

[tzor]

But the notion that there are different factions in the Democratic Party is true as well. My point number three wasn't on the notion of "promise" but on the notion of "message." Democrats "promise" their factions things all the time and they are lucky the factions don't compare notes and realize that there are conflicts. The point, however, is that they keep to the same message, quietly doing damage control, if necessary by more promises. Some Democrats have to bite their tongues on occasion because the good of the party comes first (because it is the party that helped them into their positions).

The tea party problem is a different animal. The Republican Party is divided into two parts, the Rockefeller wing and the Reagan wing. It's important to remember that the current national disease of progressiveism started with Republican presidents (Teddy Roosevelt being a proto-progressive). The bulk of the party at the national level effectively want to be Democrat - Lite. The tea party merely revived the tired former Reagan supporters within it, but lacking a charismatic person like Reagan who didn't mind getting manure dumped on him by the mainstream media, it hasn't really made any effective changes in the party. (Neither did Reagan ... George H.W. Bush, his VP was a neo-con who effectively called his economics Voo Doo before he got the nod for VP and his failure to follow his boss once he got in charge led him to a one term presidency.)

The point, however, is no matter who you are in the Democratic party, if the official talking point is A, you echo that. You don't see this in the Republican party. No one can set a Republican talking point because everyone has their own talking points. As a result, given the mainstream media, most Republicans play defense to Democratic talking points.

[thegreekdog]

The point, however, is no matter who you are in the Democratic party, if the official talking point is A, you echo that. You don't see this in the Republican party. No one can set a Republican talking point because everyone has their own talking points. As a result, given the mainstream media, most Republicans play defense to Democratic talking points.

Why do you think the Republican talking points are different?

My answer is that the talking points of one wing are vastly different and completely at odds with the talking points of the other wing. One wing is saying "we need to make cuts and not raise taxes on rich people, but we can't cut defense or anything else that we like." The other wing is saying "we need to make cuts, including to defense and anything else you like, and we could maybe raise taxes on rich people if we get those cuts."

Look, I'm not unsympathetic to your point. I think the Republicans' message can be very straightforward. Just point out that raising taxes on rich people won't do anything to balance the budget... it would barely make a dent. I don't hear that at all out of the Republicans. That's a good starting point. Then hash out the defense cuts stuff. I don't have faith, but I also don't think sequestration is as bad as the Democrats and Republicans are making it out to be. The president said yesterday that hundreds of thousands of Americans would lose their teachers and Medicare, etc., but that's really not true at all. And the reason he gets away with stuff like that is because Republican leaders would say the same thing (if they could've said it first) because, again, they have no interest in cutting government spending for the most part.

[patches70]

The Republican party would do better if they actual did the things they supposedly represent. You know, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, rule of law, equal opportunity, that sort of stuff.

[tzor]

Why do you think the Republican talking points are different?

Because they don't know how to sing in unison. Here is a hint; you don't even have to agree on details to sing in unison as long as you agree on the talking point.

Here is a Republican Talking Point and I'm surprised that the Speaker actually mentioned it: "The Senate has not passed a single budget since Obama took office. We have on several occasions."

Every Republican Congressman should echo that statement. Every Republican Senator should demand Harry Reed bring up a budget bill on the floor.

That's what I mean about a "talking point." Instead Republicans just want to talk about whatever pops into their mind at the time and it all gets lost in the noise.

[thegreekdog]

Why do you think the Republican talking points are different?

Because they don't know how to sing in unison. Here is a hint; you don't even have to agree on details to sing in unison as long as you agree on the talking point.

Here is a Republican Talking Point and I'm surprised that the Speaker actually mentioned it: "The Senate has not passed a single budget since Obama took office. We have on several occasions."

Every Republican Congressman should echo that statement. Every Republican Senator should demand Harry Reed bring up a budget bill on the floor.

That's what I mean about a "talking point." Instead Republicans just want to talk about whatever pops into their mind at the time and it all gets lost in the noise.

Because there are fundamental differences between Republicans (is my point).

[Night Strike]

Here is a Republican Talking Point and I'm surprised that the Speaker actually mentioned it: "The Senate has not passed a single budget since Obama took office. We have on several occasions."

Every Republican Congressman should echo that statement. Every Republican Senator should demand Harry Reed bring up a budget bill on the floor.

Actually, a lot have....including both the moderate ones (like my senator) and the conservative/libertarian ones (Rand Paul, etc.). The problem is that the media doesn't make the same statements or ask the same questions of the Democrats, so the Republican message doesn't get out. When it comes as a pleasant surprise that NBC's Chuck Todd would actually question Jay Carney on their pay-for-access arrangement with Organizing for Action (something that would be a wall-to-wall headline if done by a Republican president), it's plainly an uphill battle to get a message out that the media dislikes.

And really, all of this just shows how the Tea Party people have been fighting against both Democrats and Republicans alike in an effort to actually reduce governmental spending.

[AndyDufresne]

Actually, a lot have....including both the moderate ones (like my senator) and the conservative/libertarian ones (Rand Paul, etc.). The problem is that the media doesn't make the same statements or ask the same questions of the Democrats, so the Republican message doesn't get out.

I don't think it is the media's fault.


--Andy

[tzor]

Because there are fundamental differences between Republicans (is my point).

But there are fundamental differences between Democrats. They just know how to shut up and stick to the script.

There are a considerable number of African American Democrats who know how badly Obama has done to the average person in their community; they deliberately remain silent for the greater good of the party.

[comic boy]

I think you both make good points but the crucial one in my view is that the Republican electorate is hopelessly divided , hence the selection of a ( weak ) compromise candidate in the last election.
I find it amusing that Night Strike still has his head firmly in the sand regarding the media , pretty much every democracy in the world has a liberal leaning media , doesn't prevent well organised Conservatives being elected on a regular basis.

[thegreekdog]

Because there are fundamental differences between Republicans (is my point).

But there are fundamental differences between Democrats. They just know how to shut up and stick to the script.

There are a considerable number of African American Democrats who know how badly Obama has done to the average person in their community; they deliberately remain silent for the greater good of the party.

Do you mean African American Democratic politicians or African American Democrats?

In the last two elections, Tea Party type candidates have won primaries against Republican stalwarts. There is a definitely a battle within the party. Hell, Eric Cantor said yesterday that there would be a Republican civil war over the Violene Against Women Act.

[Night Strike]

In the last two elections, Tea Party type candidates have won primaries against Republican stalwarts. There is a definitely a battle within the party. Hell, Eric Cantor said yesterday that there would be a Republican civil war over the Violence Against Women Act.

Yep, because they're all worried about those who would come in and challenge their reign of power and expanding the government. I even thought Cantor could be acceptable to keep around when he was going to challenge Boehner on the tax hikes, but apparently that was a pipe dream too. Those Republicans despise the Tea Party people probably more than the Democrats do.

[Night Strike]

Precisely why the liberals in the Republican Party have to be removed: http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2013 ... word-women

[AndyDufresne]

I think it is high time we get rid of all legal protections for anyone. I'mma 'bout to unleash a bananapocalypse on y'all.


--Andy

[Lil_SlimShady]

I think it is high time we get rid of all legal protections for anyone. I'mma 'bout to unleash a bananapocalypse on y'all.


--Andy

I like bananas so bring it.

[tzor]

Do you mean African American Democratic politicians or African American Democrats?

I will go down the middle and say African American Democrats in positions of authority. Some may be in political authority, some may be in positions of authority that might have influence in politics.

[thegreekdog]

Do you mean African American Democratic politicians or African American Democrats?

I will go down the middle and say African American Democrats in positions of authority. Some may be in political authority, some may be in positions of authority that might have influence in politics.

So why do you think they are in lockstep with the president?

[Nobunaga]

Interesting timing. Found this on Drudge today - civil war in the Republican Party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/34 ... ina-trinko

[tzor]

So why do you think they are in lockstep with the president?

Because, at first, they believed him to be an African American in the generally understood meaning of the word. There is, however, a significant difference between an African American and an American of direct African heritage. There is also the recent history of the Democratic Party that almost sends the notion that party comes before community, because, clearly the Republicans would be worse.

It is very hard to leave that Democratic plantation; a Black non Democrat is a non Black in the community. Look how viciously a conservative African American is character assassinated by the Democratic Party (with the media looking on at the spectacle and clapping) throughout recent history and you will see the pressure within the community to keep their own to the party line.

[Juan_Bottom]

Cantor is one of the worst human beings on the planet. He sponsored H.R. 1119 - employers can decide not to pay overtime pay, at their discretion.

He and Paul Ryan are also behind the sequester. Basically, he is really loving watching America fail right now. He wants to see America fail so that he can attempted a policy coup more in line with his vision of apocalyptic feudalism. On the Federal level, the Republican party is the biggest threat to America since Japan, '42.

“As you know, the sequester was designed to force action to deal with the deficit and debt. We passed a bill 300 days ago to deal with this. As recently as December the Senate still hasn’t done anything. So I do expect the sequester to take effect, because the Senate hasn’t acted, the president is around the country campaigning instead of governing. So I think what you’ll see happen next week is we will pass an appropriations Measure that gives the administration more flexibility.”

Obama has not been campaigning
Bills passed 300 days ago are no longer valid
Boehner refuses to allow any sequester bills to be discussed

[thegreekdog]

So why do you think they are in lockstep with the president?

Because, at first, they believed him to be an African American in the generally understood meaning of the word. There is, however, a significant difference between an African American and an American of direct African heritage. There is also the recent history of the Democratic Party that almost sends the notion that party comes before community, because, clearly the Republicans would be worse.

It is very hard to leave that Democratic plantation; a Black non Democrat is a non Black in the community. Look how viciously a conservative African American is character assassinated by the Democratic Party (with the media looking on at the spectacle and clapping) throughout recent history and you will see the pressure within the community to keep their own to the party line.

I'm not sure about all that, but I think you might have a nugget of what I was getting at. The president is pretty popular (in the context of a politician) so people in his own party are loathe to give up riding his coattails. That's my interpretation.