What's Ahead For The Republican Party
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-08/whats-ahead-republican-party
Since Tuesday's election, many Republicans have called for a frank reassessment of what it means to be a member of the GOP. As one Republican strategist put it, "Our party needs to realize that it's too old and too white and too male and it needs to figure out how to catch up with the demographics of the country before it's too late." Diane and Republican analysts discuss the identity and future of the GOP.
Guests
Henry Olsen
vice president of the American Enterprise Institute.
Matt Kibbe
president and CEO of FreedomWorks, and author of "Hostile Takeover: Resisting Centralized Government's Stranglehold on America."
Leslie Sanchez
Republican-affiliated consultant, founder and CEO of Impacto Group LLC, and author of "Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other.”
David Winston
Republican strategist, president of the Winston Group and CBS News consultant. He has served as an adviser to the House and Senate Republican leadership for more than a decade.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
sh wrote:
The Republican Party is a study in hypocrisy. The say they stand for limited government, and say that people are better left to make their own decisions - EXCEPT when women want the right to make their own medical decisions. They want to allow the banks to run amok on the basis that too much regulation hurts the economy, but have no problem in dictating to a woman whether or not she should carry a baby to term, regardless of the circumstances.
Not an attack on you by any means but with the baby issue, why does the women have any more or less say about it then the father, if I am the father of a fetus then I should be able to take the baby when it is born, and block an abortion if I have personal beliefs that lean that way. And the Mother should be required to pay child support. Or is this a one way door, just wanted to know where the fairness argument ends. It seems to me that although the woman must be the one to carry the child, both parents should have to agree to termination before that is allowed. But I am only an old white man so please feel free to call me sexist.
I listened this a.m. to this program and didn't hear real self-reassessment coming from the representatives of the Republican party. Perhaps it's still too early. Perhaps they're still in shock(though they needn't have been had they checked any of the poll aggregator web sites that got it right-Silver, Wang, Linzer, et al). Even so, the remarks I heard were sadly lacking in any real sense that the country has moved on and the days of the white male majority are over. I found the whole hour very disappointing ifor the lack of insight being offered by those who will play a part in the Republican party's future.
E. D. wrote:
"the days of the white male majority are over."
Uhhh ... not when it comes to who has the money, E.D.
Which is why Democrats want confiscatory tax policy. "We want to 'spread the wealth around'", right E.D?
Ask yourself why that "white male majority" is moving its money and its companies overseas? Let the Democrats keep the Fed printing money while no business people invest and the economy goes in the tank and then watch the "self-reassessment" of the 25% without jobs in the middle of a double-dip. What do you think they'll be "reassessing" then?
Diane's guests never answered the central question: can the GOP change? It's not that their message is getting garbled, it's that their message is WRONG.
IE: America understands that the GOP is against gay marriage very well– their opposition is loud and clear. But that position is completely against the tide of history and the will of the electorate, more so every day.
As long as the GOP refuses to change its ideology, it's going to lose. As it should.
And so we now get a vision of what the future will look like without a viable Republican party. What I'm hearing from your guests, and reading on this message board from conservatives is simply denial. Refusing to believe the facts won't make them go away. A party dominated by old white men is doomed from the get go. 2016 only 70% of voters will be white- down from 87% in 1992. This is why you hear that this may be last election in which Republicans are competitive. 2016 Texas will be a swing state. The number of hispanics who don't vote here is a sleeping giant. Without Texas GOP can't win a national election. But do you hear Republicans responding to this stark fact? Nope, they're just gonna keep living in the bubble. I wonder if that's what the whigs did. Well, this is actually good news for Democrats. It means that all future Supreme Court Justices will be chosen by Democratic presidents, since Republicans don't want to listen to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. They've alienated (forgive the reference) african americans, the secular, hispanics, -and now women- and they still don't seem to even know it- but seem to think they can win elections anyway. And they wonder why people say they're out of touch......geeeez....
@ shan wells: you wrote "IE: America understands that the GOP is against gay marriage very well– their opposition is loud and clear. But that position is completely against the tide of history"
Please site empirical history from your "tide of history" that shows that gay marriage has ever been the norm, or WIDELY accepted anywhere in the world. Oh... and please do include the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in your composite stats... I'm not taking a stand here for or against this - just pointing out that you using "tide of history" as though it is an unavoidable eventuality throughout all of mankind and that is a gross overstatement.
IF erectile dysfunction is such a horrible malady that multiple drug companies are selling cures like hotcakes (Viagra, Cialis, Levitril et al) and making profits hand over fist, then maybe there should be national telethons. Rush Limbaugh could be the poster child. With all that "activity" to build families, then there should be far less need for contraceptives and certainly no need to worry about abortions. Why would a customer needing Viagra pay big bucks to get it and then pay more to block the results? Or pay even more to remove the results?
Viagra et al as serving a critical need is specious at best.
The most important thing about this particular show is that it's even taking place. As one guest correctly said during yesterday's show about the election results, Republican moderates are an endangered species. I would add that liberal Republicans have long been extinct.
So long as the GOP remains the true party of "political correctness" and "religious correctness" (where one must "worship" at the shrines of pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Jesus, and Ayn Rand's warmed-over Social Darwinism, or be denounced and exiled as a RINO: Republican In Name Only) we and they can expect more of the same.
For anyone who believes that government regulation is essential for the marketplace to function properly (a claim Romney made, for the first time, during the first debate - and then quickly abandoned), who prizes religious freedom (meaning: the government stays out of religion, and isn't used to impose religious "values" on those of different faiths), and who believes that life is more than "survival of the fittest" in a war between "producers" and "parasites", there is no place in today's GOP.
So how is disenfranchising fundamentalist Christians good for democracy in this nation ?
As an aging Christian white male, I am feeling rather underappreciated these days. I doubt very much if the people who want the Republicans to go the way of the British Tory Party would be terribly interested in listening to what I have to say.
David Brooks stopped being a conservative when he came out in favor of same sex marriage. Not a pundit to be trusted.
I don't want young white women telling me that what I have accomplished and what I have sacrificed does not matter. Especially if they are my daughters and nieces.
The sad truth is that the moral values many minorities hold dear is eclipsed by the fact that the Democrats outbid the Republicans for largess. We cannot win this competition, and it really is bad for the country. In my view, we shouldn't even try. Of course, we should encourage all people to unite with the Republicans if they share our values and our interests. But to vote for someone because of who he or she is rather than what he or she stands for is the worst form of bigotry. Rehm waves the feminist shirt as if it were existential truth that women's issues are the ones that matter. They used to call these "wedge politics": own it, Democrats. This is all you stand for now.
climatewiz1 on November 8, 2012 @ 6:00 pm wrote: “Please site empirical history from your ‘tide of history’ that shows that gay marriage has ever been the norm, or WIDELY accepted anywhere in the world.”
I actually agree with your dismissal of that “tide of history” rhetoric. I always dismiss anyone (“left” or “right”) who tries to predict the future. They just prove themselves to be fools.
However, I must point out that shan was talking about the future, not the past. That rhetorical phrase assumes that what’s happened recently is an omen of what will occur hereafter. Translation: the fact that gay marriage has been adopted by many States by legislation, and now by direct popular vote, supposedly proves it will “inevitably” be adopted everywhere.
But that’s no worse than the opponents of gay marriage, who until today loved to point to their almost unbroken record of success in popular referendums adopting anti-marriage amendments. They claimed to have the “tide of history” on their side too.
Both should remember the words contained in every stock prospectus: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”
P.S. - And gang rape (heterosexual as well as homosexual) along with cruelty and selfishness, was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Don’t take my word for it, take the word of the Prophet Ezekiel (16:49).
Bill_R on November 8, 2012 @ 6:37 pm wrote: “So how is disenfranchising fundamentalist Christians good for democracy in this nation ?”
The same way “disenfranchising” fundamentalist Muslims (a.k.a. jihadists, or Islamists) is good for democracy, or anyone with fundamentalist views and the desire to force everyone to live by them.
I don’t want a government imposing “Christian values” (as conservative fundamentalists deem them) on me. I don’t want to be told who I can marry, what women can do with their bodies or lives, or told that unless I embrace the “true faith” I am both un-godly and un-American!
That’s what fundamentalist Christians want. Denying them the power to accomplish it isn’t “disenfranchising” them. It’s adhering to the true principles this nation was founded on, and which formed our Constitution.
Said Christians have every right not to allow gay marriage in their faith. They have no right to say other faiths (such as Reform Judaism and the United Church of Christ) must do the same. And they have no right to use the government to enforce their views on others. Doing that is religious tyranny - truly un-American.
Bill_R on November 8, 2012 @ 6:39 pm wrote: “As an aging Christian white male, I am feeling rather underappreciated these days. I doubt very much if the people who want the Republicans to go the way of the British Tory Party would be terribly interested in listening to what I have to say.”
If it will soothe your feelings, I’m always interested in what you (or any of my other “opponents”) have to say. I just don’t agree with what you say, and assert my right to say so. It’s called open debate.
And I (and many others, including the guests on this show) don’t want the Republicans to go that way. But many of us think, and warn, that may happen unless the Party changes.
You, of course, are free to disagree.
Bill_R on November 8, 2012 @ 6:41 pm wrote: “David Brooks stopped being a conservative when he came out in favor of same sex marriage. Not a pundit to be trusted.”
I disagree with you about Brooks not being conservative. But, I also say no pundit should be “trusted”.
Hear what they bloviate, then check the facts and decide for yourself!
Bill_R on November 8, 2012 @ 6:46 pm wrote: “I don't want young white women telling me that what I have accomplished and what I have sacrificed does not matter.”
Would you prefer if it were old white women, or non-whites of any age?
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
;-)
I don’t know of many women (of any race or age) who would or have said such a stupid thing. (That’s leaving out the certifiably insane, who can be found in any group.) So please tell me what the [bleep] you’re talking about!
Bill_R on November 8, 2012 @ 6:51 pm wrote: “The sad truth is that the moral values many minorities hold dear is eclipsed by the fact that the Democrats outbid the Republicans for largess.”
No, the sad truth is that everything you said in that Comment about Democrats (and people who didn’t vote for Romney or Republicans) is nothing more than ignorant slander!
However, it’s very telling that you assume “our side” votes exclusively based on selfishness (a “virtue” often extolled by “your side”) or race (etc.). I think Freud calls that projection, or transference.
I am a White, Jewish, Middle-class, retired male attorney. I didn’t vote for Obama expecting “largess”. And I certainly didn’t vote for him because of his race. I voted for him not only because I believe many of the policies he champions are best for this nation, and everyone in it, but also because I believe the opposite of those championed by Romney and the Republicans.
In short, sir, I’m just as much a patriotic American as you are, and not someone who puts my selfish interests ahead of what’s best for the nation. It’s also extremely telling that “your side” constantly falsely accuses us of being the opposite. And you wonder why we say the GOP is divisive!
I have been registered as an Independent for some decades. The last Republican presidential candidate I voted for was George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. I have been unable to bring myself to vote Republican since Newt Gingrich began his antics in 1994.
After listening to this show, I can only conclude that so-called Republican strategists are clueless. All three of these people still cling to the delusion that they can convince voters that it's possible to turn back the clock to 1954. They believe that all they need do is put a little lipstick on their pig. It's not the people who need convincing; it's the dazed and confused Republicans.
Obviously, you have religious/moral objections to gay marriage and that's just fine. But don't attempt to impose your religious beliefs on others who don't share your convictions. Doing so puts you in the same camp as the Taliban. America is not a theocracy.
@ Etaoin: Agreed concerning your comments on the "tide of history."
I will always take exception with someone who tries to tell me that our lives and human nature are subject to "exponential overwhelm" by any man made factor and that our destiny is solidly set in stone. Our agency will (hopefully) always be with us and allow us to choose our own course or change our own course in life. I served with the multi national peace keeping forces, in country, at the fall of Viet Nam and Cambodia. I helped tear down the Berlin wall with my own hands. I've seen the worst and the best of human nature in my lifetime and I fully understand the quagmire that we sink into when we are divided as a nation and a people.
- is gay marriage on the rise? certainly
- do lgtb rights deserve as much consideration as any? most certainly
- should the rights of those who do not agree with their choices be trampled on or taken for granted in or throught the process of resolving this as a nation? most certainly not
I look forward to coming together as a nation to resolve these and many other important issues and problems. Thank you for a civil discussion.
To climatewiz1, writing on November 8, 2012 @ 9:13 pm:
Your remark about “exponential overwhelm” is close to one of my objections to Marxism, specifically his metaphysical theory which underlies his theory of Communism. The theory is known as Dialectical Materialism, and it holds that all of human history is determined by economic forces, and that we are “inevitably” moving to a definitive end: his “worker’s paradise” of course. (I sometimes wonder if that’s where the “tide of history” nonsense originally came from.)
Anyway, one of my objections to all this has nothing to do with politics or economics, nor with grand issues about freedom (important as all those things are). No, since I’m basically an Empiricist, I believe the true test of any theory is how well it matches reality, and especially how accurate it’s predictions are, assuming any are made.
Marx made predictions, and they nearly all turned out wrong! He believed that Communism would first be established in the advanced Capitalist nations of the West (particularly Great Britain and the U.S.). After all, Communism was the “final stage of history” that would arise out of and replace Capitalism. Therefore it would first arise in the most developed Capitalist countries (and never in such backwards places as Russia or China).
Well, as the saying goes: Karl, how’s that workin’ out for ya?
I suspect you agree.
But, I’m afraid this is where we must part company. I don’t understand your remark about gay marriage: that it requires trampling on the rights of those who do not agree. Please explain where or how you think that’s happening.
If you are referring to judicial resolution of this question, I have two responses to make.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
1) I don’t believe there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. (I’d go into my reasons, but I doubt you want a law lecture.) However, I do believe gay marriage should be created by the legislative process - as in New York, for example.
2) Even where courts have ruled that such a constitutional right exists, that’s not a case of “trampling” on anything. Leaving aside the question of whether such rulings are correct, they are perfectly valid exercises of judicial power. The plain fact is every time a judicial decision is rendered someone’s rights are “trampled on”. (Or, as we lawyers say, someone’s ox was gored.) There will always be a winner and a loser.
But, if you believe in the idea of constitutional government, then you have to accept such “goring” will take place. Consider the two most controversial decisions of the last Supreme Court’s term: the “Obamacare” and SB1070 cases. In both of them “States’ Rights” got gored. The authority of the Federal government to regulate the health and health insurance industries was upheld against the claim that such power belonged solely to the States. In the other case, the exclusive authority of the Federal government over immigration matters was upheld against Arizona’s claim that it had authority in that area too.*
* (Yes, part of SB1070 was upheld, but only because the Court interpreted a portion of the Federal Immigration Act as allowing such a law. Therefore, Arizona had authority only because Federal law, enacted by Congress, gave it.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
So, if you believe in the concept of equal protection of the law, mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and a court rules that denying marriage to gays and lesbians is a violation of that mandate, how can that be “trampling” on anything? You might as well say ending segregation trampled on the rights of those who favored it - except constitutionally they had no such right.
Again, let me emphasize I don’t believe there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. But there should be a statutory one.
And you're welcome.
@ Etaoin
Answered concisely: If resolved throught the legislative process (state or national) I feel this is the proper channel. If, thru that process the rights of those who choose traditional "1 man - 1 woman" marriage are given equal consideration and not eroded in the process then there are no qualms. Equal protection under the law is not an assault on traditional marriage or family. I believe that where society gets bogged down and debates the minutia of these issues is when we try to "measure" diversity and then either over compensate or under compensate thru quotas, hiring practices or things such as changing the core curriculum in schools. All of these subjects are potential hot buttons for any member of society, and I didn't even throw religion into the equation!!! Thanks Etaoin.
@climate:
Here is the dilema. A "marriage" (for lack of a better term) has two facets to it and that is where this issue lies. Marriage may be both religious (a church-sanctioned union) and civil (a government-sanctioned contract that grants certain rights to the parties). That's why, Catholics, for example, face both the process of divorce (the legal, civil part) and annulment by the church to disolve the marriage. But in practical terms, it's the civil part that really "counts". I always knew that, of course, but it really hit home when my wife and I picked up our license and saw it signed by witnesses after the ceremony. Marriage, in that sense is a civil/legal event.
It's the civil part that grants the rights that l/g individuals seek, with regard to (again) government-sanctioned medical and financial benefit that accrues to the partnership. Many people, including many politicians on the right have no objection to that. Personally, it rubs me the wrong way, but I can't deny the logic of it. Many people also, while acknowledging the legitimacy of the civil part will say, "just don't call it marriage". I can see their point, it's certainly not traditional marriage, but if two men want to stand up in front of an Episcopal priest and get married, who am I to say they can't? Again, as a traditionalist, it rubs me the wrong way, it is, in my opinion, a slap in God's face, but it's none of my business.
But here is the larger problem ... suppose my wife and I want to bring our neigbor into the "marriage". Who is to say we cannot form a civil contract that grants a third or a fourth or a fifth person all the same privileges with respect to medical and financial benefit that, by law, the civil part of marriage - the contract part - allows? The answer is, "nothing". BTW, I've heard people suggest that if two men or two women can get married, then why can't I marry my horse? Well, that's because your horse can't enter into a legal contract - it can't fulfill the civil part of marriage. If you could find a preacher that would marry you and your equine friend, that's fine, but the state's not going to recognize it. But, other than arbitrary proscription by law, if two men or two women can marry, who is to say that two men AND two women can't all marry each other in either a civil or a religious sense? The answer is "no one". So l/g individuals may complain that they are discrimintated against, but all they really want to do is satisfy their own desires, while kicking the discriminatory can a little farther down the road.
The republican party needs to split. It may cost them the next presidential election, but they'll be ready in 8 years.
The social & fiscal conservatives (Tea party) need to go off in one party, and the fiscal conservative/social liberal need to go into a second. The 2nd group will attract many folk like myself who supported Reagan way back when. But now, the republicans totally turn me off. As a result, I call myself an independent.
Cliff1255 wrote:
"The republican party needs to split. It may cost them the next presidential election, but they'll be ready in 8 years.
The social & fiscal conservatives (Tea party) need to go off in one party, and the fiscal conservative/social liberal need to go into a second. The 2nd group will attract many folk like myself who supported Reagan way back when. But now, the republicans totally turn me off. As a result, I call myself an independent".
Yeah. That's a great idea, Cliff. If you're a Democrat. It would cost AT LEAST the next 3 to 5 Presidential election cycles. 20 more years of Democratic Presidents and you would not recognize the country you live in.