What Happened to the Republican Party?

Remove all ads!

I have to admit that Rally got me thinking about this in a thread a while back. When I look back at the Republican Party historically - and by this I mean in my lifetime, so I'm really only going back to the 70s here - the were virtually libertarian in nature. Sure, not as libertarian as the libertarian party, but much more so than today. They preached the virtues of small government, and self-reliance. This is almost a complete 180 from what they represent today. What the hell happened? While I think that their notions at that time were rather quaint to the point of being overly simplistic, there was something endearing about them that the present atmosphere in the Republican party lacks. So how about other people (at least if you're old enough to remember the Reagan years).

 

Being old enough to go back a lot further I would love to answer your question. I don't think there is a simple answer but some things contributed to the change.

1)In the 60"s the youth of America woke up and found they had power. That scared a lot of people.
2)Blacks got sick of the way they were treated and took action. That scared more people.
3)Women in the work force got tired of being paid less than men for the same work and being refused jobs they were perfectly capable of doing simply because they were women. That really scared people.
Why was it the Republican Party that became conservative? The Democrate Party was liberal and I guess people went to what they considered the lesser of two evils.
I'm sure there is a lot more to it this.

 

I think the overall goals and commitment of the republican party has remained the same for a long time. The republican party believes you build up the country by promoting business. The democrats believe you help the most by helping individuals.

How each party does does it's primary goal of either building business or helping individuals shifts from administration to administration depending on the personality and dynamics of the leaders.

 

I wish I could find the link, but not too long ago I read an interesting article describing how Ronald Reagan brought the Christian Right into the fold of the Republican Party. That was the beginning of the end for me - all of a sudden, the Republicans had a ready-made social agenda that I simply couldn't - and still can't - stomach.

I'll try to search up a link for that article.

 

I think the issue is far simpler than people suspect. You win seats and elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator with the easiest-to-understand message. Progressive ideas are hard to explain in 5 second soundbites.

For example:

"Them liberals are trying to tell you how to run your family and business and trying to take away your right to worship God! Are you gonna stand for that?!?"

The above is s simple, black and white and easy to understand message. You do not need to have completed high school or have read books to understand it.
The reality of course is that the above is also false. Liberals have never sought to wrench from anyone their rights to run their own businesses, raise children or worship God! Never in any way shape or form!
But it takes more than 5 seconds and a listener with an attention span to explain how these misconceptions come about and what the actual positions of liberal are. Republicans are not being elected right now by well educated and intelligent republicans. They are winning by rallying that lowest common denominator. The "red state" folks who think that evolution is about monkeys changing into men in a poof of magic and that homosexuality is caused by Satan and that minorities are more prone to illegal activity.


Edit: And as Rallymama refered to certain evangelicals(Robertson and Falwell) are pushing the uneducated like taskmasters.

Early in American history, republicans were actually liberals and Dem's were the hardcore conservatives. Republicans sought to abolish slavery and many of them were freethinkers spawned of the enlightenment era.

Hard to pinpoint exactly which factors were most influential in how things got flipped.

As for the republican party of OUR lifetime, Nixon was pretty bad(but JFK was nearly so) but things did not take the hard turn for the worse until Reagan. Ronnie was an imbecille but I think he honestly believed what he was doing was right for America. His heart was in the right place I think. Unfortunately his "Reaganomics" put us in a huge bind while giving big bussiness a free ride for 12 years.

Republicans now have things burining at both ends. They have the influence of the rich and powerful and the appeal to those who cannot be bothered with the more complex ideas of liberalism.

[ March 24, 2005, 20:24: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

If you carefully read the plank of the Republican Party, you will see that it is still definitely for small government and self-reliance. To clearly understand the agenda of the GOP, you should go directly to the source . You will also see surprisingly little influence from the Religious Right there...don't confuse organized and vocal with influential.

I think perhaps the thing that has changed is how self-reliance and small government are best defined in our era. Also, one has to look at the small government and self-reliance as proposed by the GOP in contrast with the social programs and labeling espoused by the Democratic Party.

Adjust the contrast to obtain best picture .

 

Come on, RuneQuestor. You can't really believe that crap. The republicans get a huge amount of support (financially and votes) from the white collar professionals. Most of the republicans I know have GRADUATE degrees.

One item to note is this president is the first majority president in twelve years, I'd say the republicans are getting elected by getting ALL the republican votes and most of the independant votes.

A huge chunk of people vote on ONE issue; whether it's abortion, separation of church and state, homosexual unions, jobs, or ethical treatment of animals (there's hundreds of issues you could place here -- hell, my mother voted for Kennedy because he had nice hair). The people you describe as 'lowest common denominator' are typically the one issue voters. I think that vote is pretty much split down the middle. Both sides try to get as many of those as possible. But nobody can appeal to all of them.

There is no one evil party and one good party -- both political parties want to make the country better. The difference is the priorities placed in getting there. Currently, the republicans have reached more people by placing priorities in promoting business and trying to reduce the government where ever possible (DoHS being the exception here).

 

This is rather funny, as the conservatives complain about the same thing from the liberals.

For example:

"The Republicans want to take away your Social Security"
"Republicans are racists"
"Republicans don't care about the poor"

Please justify this statement with some hard facts. The bind was created while Carter was in office. The economy was in such a funk, and the only way to fix it was to "bite the bullet". Reagan called his shot, and he made it exactly as he called it. Calling names (the idiot crack) and making puffery statements that are without basis only undermine your arguements.

Back to the topic, the same question could be asked about the Democratic Party. Do you really think that John F Kennedy would support the current Democratic agenda?

The Parties are what they are because of who Americans are. They are simply doing whatever it takes to get elected. Unfortunately most Americans choose to be ignorant about those they are choosing to represent them, and allow politicians to pull the wool over their eyes time and time again.

 

They won.

 

Laches is absolutely correct.

Given enough time they will become loaded with dead weight (their version of Ted Kennedy) and deeply entrenched special interests (their version of unions). By that time the Democratic party will be lean and able to govern more effectively.

 

There are a lot of good points so far on this topic, but this is probably the most accurate of all of them. Politicians need their jobs just like any other person needs a job. Since maintaining one's employment is high on most people's list of priorities, it is fair to say that this statement applies to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Hogwash on the former, and only when convenient for the latter. Hack, I usually respect (although I seldom agree) with your points, but I'm trying really hard to see how the Republican administration of the last 4+ years could honestly be described as promoting "small government". Reference the following: Department of Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, and do a Google search with Bush Foreign Relations. That should be some good reading material in addition to the link you provided. I guess the point I'm making is that I see a disconnect between the Republican talking points and what they actually put into action.

From what I can see if you rewind a decade or so, the only major Republican point that they strongly adhere to is being pro- big business. Other than that, I feel this is a very different party that what it was even a decade ago. When I dig a little deeper, I think it can even be argued that the Republican mantra of "spreading Democracy" is something you would have expected to hear from a Democrat 10 years ago. Granted, I doubt that the Democrats would have done it via the barrel of a gun, but I'm just saying that the premise is more of a principle you'd associate with the Democratic party.

Now, I'm certainly not bashing the Republican party for that. In fact, I'll give them kudos in pulling of a coup of this magnitude. It was extremely clever of them to turn that into a Republican talking point, effectively stealing it right under the nose of the Democrats when they weren't looking.

In any two party system, you're going to get a conglomerate of views within both major parties. However, I think that the reason for recent Republican success is that they have remained more or less united, while the Democrats are fractured. The Republicans have been able to speak with one voice (although sometimes out of both corners of their mouth, and often while changing their message), while the Democrats have not. I feel this speaks volumes about having a message - any message - as opposed to trying to shout over all the different voices within your own party. About the only position the Democrats have been consistent on is Social Security. However, most Americans still feel that SS isn't going to be a problem for another 20 years, so I'm not sure that's the best issue to hook their wagon to.

 

This week the Republican party may very well have finally over-reached. Bush's approval ratings are suddenly on the skids. And the Republicans, while in the middle of being scorched by their handling of SS, decided to take on, of all things, baseball and the tragic case of Terri Schiavo. As a result, they have had one of their worst months in a long time. This is a really interesting article of where the Republican may be headed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

So where is John McCain when you need him guys? I've always thought that he was the Republican's ace-in-the-hole. And after the last few months, it may be time to play that ace.

 

The only thing I know I think Bush and his regime has done good is their handling of the doping issue. They are the first American cabinet to really focus and crack down on this. Kudos to them.

In the future American athtletes will win on their own skill and dedication and not that of their doctors.

 

The problem there, joac, is that to be true to the Republican ideal of small government, there's no way the President OR Congress should be involved in the doping issue in any way.

 

Chandos,

McCain is out with the powers that are currently in control with the Republicans. The hard core in the party refer to him as "every Democrats favorite Republican", that is when they aren't calling him a traitor to his party.

Again the mirror image the Republicans and the Democrats present of each other is demonstrated in this regard. When Lieberman ran as the undercard with Gore, the DNC forced him to suppress some of his views, and he also felt it necessary to hedge on some of his more conservative stances.

Unfortunately we have two parties in this nation that are only interested in one thing, POWER! Power at any cost. The more expansive the government is the more control it can exert on the populace, and the more effective the, "look what we did for you, and look what they want to take away from you" tactics become. It is sad, but there is not "party of the people" any longer in the US.

Edit:

I concur Rally, just as the Gov't has no business in the Terry Schiavo case, they don't need to stick their noses into the steroid scandal in baseball. If the players are using steroids without an Rx, then they are already breaking the law, and they should be prosecuted. It is up to the MLB to decide what it is going to do in regards to internal enforcement.

 

What happened to the Republican Party?

They got higacked by the Religous Right.

I don't think it will last for long, especially after this week's crap fest.....but It has happened.

At least I "pray" it won't

 

I don't think a hijacking analogy works.

It's easy to be for 'small government' when you're in the minority. But when you're in the majority, you see who really was for 'small goverment' and who was really just paying it lipservice.

 

Hack, you are ladeling soup with a fork. "The PLATFORM of the GOP says..." Were you born yesterday? Platforms say what you hope people would like you to do. We would be in Utopia NOW if the platforms of the parties--either party--of the last sixty years had ever been implemented. They are not written to be implemented; they are written for candidates to run on, and thereafter to be ignored. Unlike the rest of us, you must have been paying attention in civics class.

As for what happened to the GOP, they discovered God, and He turned out to be their best friend. What can you do when your party's agenda calls for tax cuts for the rich, increased pollution through dismantling of controls, reduced aid to education and healthcare, sending factories and jobs overseas. How can you possibly get people to vote for such programs and elect you? Easy! You call on God! And He doesn't cost you a cent! Abortion, prayer in schools, stem cell research, gay marriage, the ten commandments: none of these cost you a penny. They're free! And the Yahoos who fall for it will vote you into office and be proud even while you're stealing everything they have. Of course, there's the slight problem that they might want you to act on their agenda, after they've elected you. They might even get upset if you don't. Just keep stringing them along, I suppose. As that great Republican Honest Abe said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

 

Did you even go to the link, Cernak? The Bush Administration has aggresively pursued each of the items listed in the Republican agenda...in particular the Social Security reform and the Homeland Security issues. If you look at the docket of Congress, there is proposed or pending legislation dealing directly with each of the issues covered in the Agenda. Surprise! Not one of them has anything to do with a religious right agenda.

It's also sad that people continue to "blame" the current status of things on a fringe religous group. It's time for the anti-conservatives to pull their heads out of the sand and accept the fact that the majority of voters in this nation supported Bush...even in the midst of a difficult and ugly war. The problem lies not with the Republican party being "too religious"...it lies with the Democrats being too far out of touch with America.

Its funny...but with the exception of the stem cell issue, polls indicate that Americans support restrictions or limitations on abortion, the freedom to pray in schools, marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, and the right to display religous symbols and icons...yet these are listed as fodder for the wacko fringe.

Maybe it's time to take a hard look and figure out who the wacko fringe really is.

 

I think though Hacken that your assertion about polls may be a tad incomplete and doesn't really hit the 'big gov't/small gov't' perceived change that started the thread. For example, according to an ABC poll, 55% of Americans believe gay marriage should be illegal. The way you phrased it makes it sound like a larger split than the nearly evenly divided reality. Additionally though, and important to Aldeth's initial question, 58% of Americans say that the gay marriage issue is a state-by-state issue and 62% of Americans are against changing the US Constitution. The real question with respect to the subject here is, in my view, why are Republicans now interefering in something that was traditionally held for the states to decide when they long preached states-rights and a majority of Americans (62%) are against their proposed actions? It looks like their earlier preaching about states-rights was thrown out the door when they gained power to me. (And I'm painting with a broad brush that isn't fair. Dick Cheney for example is a Republican who thinks that it is a state issue, I'm sure there are plenty of others.)

I have similar questions with some of your other polling assertions. According to a Pew poll from Feb 2004, 36% of Americans favored making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion while 58% opposed the idea.

I'd say abortion and gay marriage were the two 'biggies'. I do think there is a solid majority in favor for allowing school prayer. I'm not sure about the religious icon thing - I didn't see it brought up before but I'm not sure that the democrats are against it - depending on what you mean.

But regardless of whether Republicans are on the side of a majority of folks or not on various issues, certain things don't change. A republican controlled Congress with a Republican President have had the largest increase of discretionary non-defense spending in history. A Republican controlled Congress with a Republican President have passed the single largest entitlement benefit with the increase to Medicare in decades. A Republican controlled Congress with a Republican President are now passing laws tailored to impact the health care decisions of a single family (while 80% of the nation disagreed with their actions.) This brings into question where the small goverment Republican party has gone - which I took to be the original question.

More people than Glenn Reynolds are currently reporting a potential schism in the Republican party over the big goverment incarnation in Washington. AEI, Cato, etc. have been pitching a fit for a while now.

Edit - as an aside, Hacken I think when you write that it is time for liberals to realize that a majoirty of Americans supported Bush even in the midst of an ugly war you are getting the cart before the horse. A majority of Americans supported Bush, and Bush won the election, because of Americans views regarding the war, terrorism, etc. and not because of the above moral views. That isn't to say that the 'moral vote' wasn't important, but it wasn't decisive:

http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2109275&

There are many similar analyses of the voting by other news sources. My favorite was actually probably the Volokh Conspiracy Blog. Volokh said, if I recall:

the same polls being used as evidence that the election turned on the 'moral vote':

1. are now much maligned as having been inaccurate as exhibited by the early news reporting;

2. showed that while 22% of the voters felt 'morals' were the key issue in the election, 20% said economy and jobs and 19% said terrorism. The poll was of 13,000 people meaning that you have a statistical tie with the margin of error. In addition, these choices and their meaning are HIGHLY dependent on the choices offered. He points out that you could combine terrorism 19% and Iraq 15% under the term 'foreign policy' or 'national security' and you have 34%. The hypothetical difference between 'morals' and the proposed 'foreign policy' is, of course, outside the margin of error. Had the options been phrased differently, the mainstream media may well have been very quick to talk about how the key issue to the voters was clearly 'national security' and that these voters broke for Bush.

3. one of the main supports for the idea that the 'moral vote' turned the election is, apparently, a bogus Cox New survey that either didn't actually ever exist or was misinterpreted by the AJC.

And, belief.net pointed out that the biggest increase in Bush voters actually came from those who didn't ever attend church, not from regular or occasional church goers.