Obama V. Romney

craner said:

Who knows? I have a suspicion, actually, that there is going to be a counter-coup by moderates, maybe not instantly or even soon, but certainly by the time the likes of Christie or Jeb are gearing up their election machines...

Click to expand...

Demographically speaking, this is pretty much their only hope for the future. The angry, white and christian contingent of the population is a shrinking constituency, and this may have been they last time they had any chance of getting the numbers in.

No reason to expect that the GOP will become something other than a mass of contradictory and mutually antagonistic tendencies.

Let's say that you divide up American conservatives or the GOP's potential "base" into (1), religious conservatives, (2), libertarians and (3), neoconservatives. What common principles unite these three groups? None whatsoever, as far as I can see. What unites them is pragmatic; namely, that they're not liberals.

You could do a similar breakdown on the Democrat base, though.

Arguably the reason that they've done well recently is because people in the centre see religous nutjobs as more of a real and immediate danger than pinko commie liberals.

Probably this is also why American politics gets quite so divisive - because successful campaigning relies on generating fear of the opposition rather than selling your own policies...

You could? What would the breakdown be?

"Let's say that you divide up American conservatives or the GOP's potential "base" into (1), religious conservatives, (2), libertarians and (3), neoconservatives. What common principles unite these three groups? None whatsoever, as far as I can see. What unites them is pragmatic; namely, that they're not liberals."

Click to expand...

But doesn't there come a point at which some of those not-liberals will even more strongly be not-extremists? There must be lots of people who voted for Romney but who aren't exactly thrilled about being on the same side as those who deny evolution and claim that women who get raped don't get pregnant. On that Malkin blog the tea-party nutters are fantasising about disbanding the GOP and forming their own hard-right version - which would kind of be popular with the more moderate Republicans who could have their party back. The problem is, would either group have enough supporters to challenge the Democrats?

Anything is possible, I suppose. On the other hand, it's not a new debate. It recurs over and over: Warmongering imperialists aren't religious nuts. Religious nuts aren't greedy capitalists. Greedy capitalists aren't warmongering imperialists.

None of these groups ever really had anything of substance in common, so why should things be different now?

I think that the point is that the Republican base is made up of a number of disparate elements, one of those elements has held the whip-hand for the last few years - is that gonna continue or will there will be a reshuffle? And what will either of those outcomes mean?
Can there be such a reshuffle when Fox is so influential?

vimothy said:

Anything is possible, I suppose. On the other hand, it's not a new debate. It recurs over and over: Warmongering imperialists aren't religious nuts. Religious nuts aren't greedy capitalists. Greedy capitalists aren't warmongering imperialists.

None of these groups ever really had anything of substance in common, so why should things be different now?

Click to expand...

Not really buying this. Conservatives (with a big C) have usually been pro business, held 'traditional' social values in line with religious teachings and are extremely hawkish wrt foreign policy. The extreme tea party coterie has mutated from this sure, but the commonalities are still there and are probably inherent in the rump of GOP voters.

I agree with Droid more than Vimothy on this. All large political parties are coalitions of disparate groups that tend to cohere on larger points of principle, temperament or tendency; the question is always, is said party at war with itself, or has it formed a pact?

Karl Rove was the great alliance-broker for the GOP. Argually, when he was at work in (say) 1999, the GOP (talking politicians, activists and core voters) was more diverse than it is now. I see no reason why the party can't reform closer to the centre, incorporating the religious right, neocons and libertarians (if we agree that these are the three main and distinct blocs). This could easily happen and be helped by (as I said) siphoning off or driving away extreme fringes of the Tea Party (does the "movement" even exist now?), like the John Birchers.

Fox and National Review can adapt as much as form Conservative and Republican opinion; Fox existed when Colin Powell was a Republican Secertary of State. It's the party powerbrokers that decide the fate of the party, and in 2008 they decided to oppose every single policy that Obama proposed.

These days people don't just talk about the future of the GOP but the future of the conservative movement. This has been in jeopardy since the rise of Sarah Palin and the exile of David Frum (figuratively speaking). There is no reason -- philosophically, ideologically, demographically, poltitically -- why it cannot rebuild around all these people.

I mean, like what happened with the John Birch Society in the 1960s, obviously.

craner said:

Karl Rove was the great alliance-broker for the GOP. Argually, when he was at work in (say) 1999, the GOP (talking politicians, activists and core voters) was more diverse than it is now. I see no reason why the party can't reform closer to the centre, incorporating the religious right, neocons and libertarians (if we agree that these are the three main and distinct blocs). This could easily happen and be helped by (as I said) siphoning off or driving away extreme fringes of the Tea Party (does the "movement" even exist now?), like the John Birchers.

Click to expand...

Ironically, I think it was Rove's success in mobilising the Christian right in such huge numbers (pushing Bush into power along the way) that has led to the undue influence the nutcase brigade wields today. Id say that the problem for the GOP in rolling back from the extremes is not so much the tea party, but the increasingly sociopathic billionaire and business brigade whose support is necessary to fight any election.

Maybe, but then sociopathic billionaires can't do much with their money unless they have the raw material of true believers, ideologues or interest groups to mobilise. I suppose it would be the issue of tax that would tie billionaires to activists, but I would think that (generally) business interest is closer to the centre and to consensus than it is to the ideological fringe or the grassroots base.

I guess, but isnt a low-tax, no-welfare, privatise everything, anti-state, Randian president the wet dream of big business? Are they centerist positions?

Speaking of billionaires, has everyone seen Trumps' latest madness?

http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/

In some sense and cases, but the Democrats have plenty of business donors and some billionaire supporters. Look at Soros.

How many hardline Rand fanatics are there among the American business class? A small percentage, I would wager. They are cranks, and cranks are not known for running successful businesses. I can't go much further here without venturing into economics, which will be like running into a brick wall. But I don't think that the state/business divide is as stark as libertarian hardliners would like or make out.

Vimothy, please could you explain to the forum why not all people who work in the private sector have horns and forked tails. Please use graphs and diagrams, thanks.

Democrats do better in rich states.

That'll do.

I've read conflicting reports but some things are suggesting that Republican turn-out was down on 2008 - if that's true it really ought to prompt some soul searching.