The GOP Is Adrift
Posted on October 23rd, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. ~Dick Cheney
Cheney’s recent speech at the Center for Security Policy is much what you would expect from him, but that is not what interests me here. What I find interesting is how obsessed Republicans have become in making the missile defense decision into a central part of their foreign policy indictment of Obama. Pence, Romney, Santorum and Pawlenty have all taken a whack at it, leading members of the conservative movement have denounced the move, and it has been one of the favorites in many columnists’ repertoires. You have never seen so many people suddenly discover the necessity of consulting with allies. Of course, these allies are not counseling Washington against rash, foolish actions, but they are instead helping Washington to antagonize another major power and encouraging our government in its own worst instincts. Naturally, the latter appeals to people who cheered on one blunder after another for the last eight years.
So far, the missile defense decision is one of the very few major substantive foreign policy acts Obama has made, and it was clearly the right one as far as relations with Russia, European security and American spending were concerned. Using this as the cudgel with which to batter Obama’s “foreign policy drift” is a sign of how far removed the GOP has become from common sense in this area. Were it limited to Cheney, one could write it off as sour grapes from a failed, old man, but it isn’t. It’s as if the Democrats had fixated on the nuclear deal with India (one of the few genuinely constructive moves the last administration made in regulating proliferation and shoring up relations with India), and then began mouthing Islamabad’s talking points on why this was a disastrous course of action. Had they done so, they would have made it clear that there was absolutely nothing the administration attempted that they would not subject to pathetic, reflexive opposition. As it happens, while there were critics of the deal, it never became a significant part of the list of Bush’s foreign policy errors, much less a leading, central element of the attacks against him.
There is no sense of proportion in Cheney’s remarks on this decision. He refers to an irrelevant interceptor system designed to counter a threat that doesn’t exist in the same breath as the Soviet invasion of Poland, which was ruinous for Poland and one of the great crimes of the last century. Aside from a coincidence in timing, there was and is no connection between the two things and it is pure demagoguery even to mention them together. Cheney speaks of the Czechs and Poles “walking the plank,” which implies execution and destruction, and nothing could be farther from the truth. Washington’s guarantees to central and eastern European NATO allies are as meaningful as they ever were, and this decision does not make the Czech Republic and Poland even slightly more vulnerable to Russia than they were before. As proponents of the missile defense system kept saying ad nauseam, the system posed no real threat to Russia, and they would have us believe that it was not even aimed at antagonizing the Russians. Now that this system will never come into existence, we are supposed to think that Obama has handed over two allied nations to Russia on a plate, when all that it does is return things to the status quo of 2005-06. What is so infuriating about the criticism of the missile defense decision is that it is the criticism actually creates the doubts about Washington’s willingness to fulfill American obligations that the critics are trying to lay at the administration’s door.
Cheney’s speech is useful as an example of how government activists always operate. They propose a scheme that is costly, unnecessary and probably dangerous to the common good, their successors attempt to scale back or modify the wasteful baggage with which they have been saddled, and then allies and members of the previous administration wail about the “abandonment” of this group and the “betrayal” of that one to defend the scheme they concocted, when no one was benefiting from the scheme in the first place and never would have benefited. Indeed, more often than not the scheme will hurt those it is supposed to aid, its costs will be far higher than originally projected, and it will create a number of negative consequences for which the schemers are unprepared and never considered. Where Republicans are concerned, this activism tends to be limited to military schemes and foreign policy boondoggles, but it applies just as well in other areas of policy. The constant ratchet effect this has ensures that no new scheme or proposed spending can ever be eliminated without tremendous effort and expenditure of political capital, and the end result is to make the state larger, more activist and an entity with its own set of interests increasingly divorced from the people it governs.
Looking at some larger questions, I find the missile defense quarrel to be a good example for thinking about the place of dissident conservatives in contemporary debates. Defending Europe from an Iranian threat that doesn’t exist and wouldn’t be directed at them if it did with a system that probably wouldn’t work is the sort of thing that one would think American conservatives would find laughably unnecessary. It is the purest sort of irrelevant government activity that does nothing for the United States, wastes the public’s money, and inflames other nations against us. The system’s relative, albeit still quite limited, popularity in the countries in question feeds off of Old World antagonisms that most Americans neither understand nor care to learn about. For most mainstream conservatives, none of this matters. The decision is “weak” and it is “appeasement,” therefore they oppose it.
There is a quote from George Kennan that is relevant here. Kennan was speaking of popular anticommunists of his day, but he could just as easily have been referring to anti-jihadists during this decade or Republican hawks generally right now:
They distort and exaggerate the dimensions of the problem with which they profess to deal. They confuse internal and external aspects of the communist threat. They insist on portraying as contemporary things that had their actuality years ago [bold mine-DL]….And having thus incorrectly stated the problem, it is no wonder that these people consistently find the wrong answers.
Replace the word communist with jihadist, Russian, Iranian or, God help us, Venezuelan, and you have a succinct description of what ails Republican and mainstream conservative foreign policy thinking. The anachronistic thinking may be the worst thing of all, because it means that they are taking foreign policy positions that have no bearing on the world as it is. People haunted by Saigon and Munich have little to tell us about a world in which Europe is united and communism is moribund. People haunted by Yalta, as the critics of the missile defense decision seem to be, have even less to tell us.
Many of us here at TAC and elsewhere have ended up as “dissident” conservatives often enough because of intense disagreements with mainstream conservatives over foreign policy. Iraq did not so much create ruptures between conservatives as it clarified why those ruptures already existed. Instead of subsiding as Iraq has (temporarily) moved to the periphery of our national debates, these ruptures are perhaps greater than ever. Aside from a general agreement that containing the USSR was desirable and common defense was a legitimate function of government, a great many people in the conservative movement don’t really share that many assumptions about the use of force, international relations and national security. Anyone following these things with any regularity knows this, but it might be useful to be reminded of it again.
Unlike almost every other area of policy under Bush, foreign policy remains one where most mainstream conservatives do not claim that Bush was insufficiently conservative. Despite reasonable arguments that Bush was not a conservative in any important respect, mainstream conservatives have shown no desire to distance themselves from him when he was at his most revolutionary and destructive. This is important to keep in mind, because it tells us that mainstream conservatives did not simply “go along” with Bush’s disastrous foreign policy primarily for reasons of tribal or partisan “team” loyalty. They embraced it and believe to this day that it was essentially correct, even if it was perhaps poorly managed here and there.
Foreign policy is not the only source of intense disagreement, but it tends to be a prominent point of contention because it is of particular importance to many of the dissident conservatives, because it is one area of disagreement where fundamental differences are not tolerated on the right, and because it is the only time when dissident conservative arguments seem to interest non-conservatives. As such, foreign policy has an outsized role in defining dissident conservative arguments, and this is probably most true for my own commentary, which has the perverse effect of letting mainstream conservatives classify us as crypto-leftists whenever it suits them because they have already defined any non-hawkish, non-nationalist, non-hegemonist position as left-wing and therefore absolutely unacceptable. The point here is not to rehearse all the reasons why hawkish, nationalist and hegemonist views are antithetical to a conservative disposition and damaging to all of the things conservatives claim to want to preserve, true as these claims are, but to recognize that there is no persuading such people when many of the fundamental assumptions they hold are diametrically opposed to ours and utterly wrong. There no longer seems any value in making the effort to persuade them.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Asserting that “Bush was not a conservative in any important respect” is a far too convenient way for the right to wash its hands of his legacy. Bush wasn’t a conservative? Tell that to the world outside of Texas.
A foreign policy calculated to be more bellicose and alarmist than that of Democrats has been the calling card of the GOP for generations now. I understand that in theory, conservatism should favor restraint in foreign policy, and that you’re first and foremost a theorist.
But to posit such restraint as conservative as the adjective “conservative” has been understood in practice since the 1950s is intellectually dishonest. Just say it: The left in the U.S. happens to be correct on foreign policy. That’s far more honest than suggesting that Bushism is flawed because it’s insufficiently conservative.
Having been a fence-sitter regarding the initial invasion of Iraq, then thoroughly disgusted with every aspect of conservative handling and defense of this debacle besides the surge (which I still applaud), I think I’m a decent example of a conservative who’s made the adjustment to the new foreign policy reality.
I supported McCain in 2008, in spite of some misgivings about his Nato/Russia policy, but am now very disappointed in his reflexive bluster, which Larison has done a very good job of illustrating as unhelpful folly.
There is a way to reach conservatives and independents, but only those that are willing to examine these issues carefully. I agree that the large crowd who simply wishes to hear their talking points from the various demagogues and swallows this trash whole is problematic.
Ironically, when the democrats retake the mantle of foreign policy competence, a process that is proceeding apace, I hope movement conservatives will either have a true epiphany or be marginalized sufficiently for rational standards to be the hallmark of conservative leadership.
I’ll grant that none of this is likely by 2010, or even 2012.
Daniel,
I am an RSS subscriber here in Taiwan and I’m sure you notice I follow regularly while posting only occasionally. I don’t mean to sound like a fan boy, but I think this post is one of the more potent ones of late. I winced especially at “Foreign policy is not the only source of intense disagreement, but it tends to be a prominent point of contention … because it is the only time when dissident conservative arguments seem to interest non-conservatives.”
I am one of those (rather left-libertarian) non-conservatives and I can confirm that this sort of traditionalist conservative foreign policy is one of my main attractions to your blog and the handful like you who are making the kind of points you make day in and day out.
I say I wince because I would like to indicate greater connection to your cause and thinking, but we approach many other issues differently.
In any case, moving back to Houston soon; if you are ever going to be around there, please make note here on your blog.
Agree with all of the above, but one minor quibble. As Sam Tannenhaus and Rick Perlstein have both pointed out, Soviet containment was a Truman doctrine and was always considered to be unsatisfactory and weak-kneed by the right wing of the Republican party. They favored a policy of confrontation and, rhetorically at least, the current rantings of Vice-President Cheney are quite in keeping with the flavor of the anti-communist right. Of course, as Tannenhaus also points out, this rhetoric did not always trump the realpolitik and was usually engaged in by those who had little responsibility in actual governance. Thus Reagan’s actual policies respecting the Soviets were much more cautious than his speeches sometimes suggested….to the point where teh right often accused him of being a timid accomodationist.
You are largely right here.
An aspect of the problem is that the conservative base is reflexively patriotic, and in the South especially, pro-military out of a sense of honor and tradition.
On the other hand, the bicoastal liberals are “oikophobic” in Scruton’s sense of the term, deferential to Europe and reflexively averse to what they see as patrioteering and to the pro-military conception of honor. Hence they can easily fall prey to Cheneyism.
These cultural biases have little to do with actual questions of geopolitics and national interest, leaving thee and me in the political wilderness, cursing the folly of the powers that be.
That didn’t make sense. It’s the reflexively patriotic who are the victims of Cheneyism.
A preview function would help.
The real question is why would anyone care what the Republicans believe about foreign policy. Does anyone really believe that the Republicans will ever be able to affect policy in the U.S. again. Does anyone really believe that in a country where less than half the children in first grade are white that conservative old white guys will ever been given control of policy again.
The only thing that is relevant to foreign policy is what the Democrats are planning and what their goals are. As far as I can tell, the Obama Administration is neo-isolationist. Look at how they stopped caring about Darfur the second that they were in charge.
“conservatives did not simply “go along” with Bush’s disastrous foreign policy primarily for reasons of tribal or partisan “team” loyalty. They embraced it and believe to this day”
The same conservatives supported Bush when he disdained nation building. Many of them were against the Kosovo campaign.
While the neocon position is widespread now it is certainly not deep rooted with conservatives so I do not think is totally unrealistic to think it can change.
This is especially true with regard to the Muslim world. Bush’s strategic rationale is that Islam is a “religion of peace” that has been “hijacked by evildoers” and that when the evildoers are eliminated the Muslims will have pro American governments happy to ally with the west.
I doubt most conservatives buy the religion of peace fantasy. Once the peaceful notions of Islam are discarded the neocon strategy is hard to justify.
This is an important article, Daniel. Kennan’s quote, which comes in the spirit of Salisbury’s earlier quote regarding “the carcass of dead policies,” is new to me; it is a good one.
@superdestroyer,
It’s important to know and critique the Republican’s Foreign Policy because they hope to retake control of the Congress (2010).
Mercer – the reason being that most conservatives, and most politically active people in America, or the world, are attracted to power. Changes in worldview are nothing, but power is forever. Or so it seems to them.
SAR,
The Republicans can hope all they want but anyone who believes that the Republicans will win back the majority in either the House or Senate is delusional. The Republicans are guaranteed to lose seats in the Senate and may pick up a couple of seats in the House.
Either way, the Republicans will still have zero affect on policy or its implementation. The only thing that is important is what the Obama Administration is doing and what the long term objectives of the establishment Democrats plans are for the future.
Worrying about what the Republicans are planning is slightly more relevant that worrying about what the Libertarian Party or the Green Party is planning.
What a cavalier attitude towards politics in a two-party system.
The GOP will one day be back in power, it is only a matter of time, the length of the public’s memory, and the cumulative popular dissatisfaction with the Democrats. It may not be in 2010, or 2012, or even 2016, but one day the GOP will regain legislative and executive control over the government. It’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Remember that it was only seven years ago that people wondered aloud whether the Democrats would ever come back to political relevance.
In the mean time, outsiders and dissidents have a unique opportunity to shape GOP policy. It would be outright foolish to assume that the GOP, as it exists today, is just going to go away or yield entirely to conservative Democrats. We have a vested interest in restoring the GOP to some semblance of sanity and righting its ideological ship. The GOP, and the country as a whole, are better off for such efforts.
From the tone of your post, I’m assuming that you are frustrated with Obama’s triangulation to and accomodation of the GOP in the recent healthcare debate, given that the Democrats have outright majorities in both houses and control the executive. I understand why you feel that way, but this isn’t the forum to discuss that. In case you haven’t noticed, this website deals mostly with conservative ideology and organization within the GOP.
Finally, comparing the GOP to the Libs or the Greens from an election-affective standpoint is laughable. While one day we might enjoy a truely multi-party government, that day is not today, and trying to shoehorn half of the effective American political body to fit an ineffective stereotype doesn’t change that.
JJM.
Anyone who believes that the Republicans will make a come back needs to explain how a conservative party can survive in the U.S. when less than half of the children in first grade whites. Considering that conservative politics in the U. S. is basically the politics of middle class and upper middle class whites, why would anyone believe that such a party can survive.
Daniel has made a name for himself criticizing Republicans and the Bush Administraiton. Now the question is why spend time criticizing something that is irrelevant to politics in the U.S.
If you look at the state of politics in the U.S., the Republican party is totally irrelevant in every state north of Virginia and east of Ohio. IN addition, the west cost is lost to conservatives.
Anyone who believed that the Democrats would become irrelevant failed to understand demographics. Even during the height of the Bush Administration, the Democrats still have more politicians relected unopposed and still had more safe districts.
If you want to restore some form of the Republican Party, you have to show that non-whites will ever vote for the more conservative party. The last fifty years of political history shows that they will not.
I am also surprised that you believe that the Obama Administration is trying to accommodate the Republicans. The only problem that the Democrats are having is voting for bills where they will have to accept total responsibility.
The last question is, given the changes in demographics in the U.S., is there any point if worrying about conservative ideology and organization. Unless you can define a model where conservative politics can function in a country with the future demographics of the U.S., then the Republicans will be as irrelevant as the Green Party or the Libertarian Party.
Grumpy Old Man, on October 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm Said:
“An aspect of the problem is that the conservative base is reflexively patriotic, and in the South especially, pro-military out of a sense of honor and tradition. ”
There’s a point where ‘reflexive’ means ‘needs a guardian, and shouldn’t be put in a position of authority on anything’. By now, anybody who’s still supporting neocon positions is there – at best; most likely they are consciously evil.
superdestroyer, that’s true to a point, but you have to keep in mind that, historically, political parties are merely collections of people chasing power, with only the slightest tether to ideology. That tether has become stronger in recent years, but there is still nothing inherently “conservative” about the word “Republican,” and there’s much less inherent “liberalism” about the Democrats.
Since the Civil War, every generation or two (30-50 years) sees a dramatic recreation of the ideologies of the two main political parties. ~40 years ago it was the flight of the Dixiecrats from the Dems and the limits of New Deal liberalism.
This time, it’s the disintegration of the coalition of cultural conservatives, jingoistic idiots, and free-market zealots which comprised the Republican part for the last several decades. This may make the Democrats look like winners for an election cycle or three, but eventually, the Constitution practically demands a counter-balancing party. That party will likely be called Republicans (though possibly not), and almost certainly comprise a significant amount of the party’s current membership (perhaps unfortunately).
I’m hoping for a semi-isolationist, economically populist, socially libertarian party which focuses its critiques on the limits of classical liberalism, but I’m certain to be disappointed.
“So far, the missile defense decision is one of the very few major substantive foreign policy acts Obama has made, and it was clearly the right one as far as relations with Russia, European security and American spending were concerned. Using this as the cudgel with which to batter Obama’s “foreign policy drift” is a sign of how far removed the GOP has become from common sense in this area. Were it limited to Cheney, one could write it off as sour grapes from a failed, old man, but it isn’t. It’s as if the Democrats had fixated on the nuclear deal with India (one of the few genuinely constructive moves the last administration made in regulating proliferation and shoring up relations with India), and then began mouthing Islamabad’s talking points on why this was a disastrous course of action. Had they done so, they would have made it clear that there was absolutely nothing the administration attempted that they would not subject to pathetic, reflexive opposition. As it happens, while there were critics of the deal, it never became a significant part of the list of Bush’s foreign policy errors, much less a leading, central element of the attacks against him.”
Let me see if I got this right. Reagan was wrong for pushing missile defense and challenging Soviet Russia under the peace-maker Gorby, and Bush was wrong for offering Europe, especially our real allies, the Czechs and Poles, missile protection. However, Obama, on the other hand, was correct in selling out the Czechs and Poles in a Chamberlain-like aire in order to induce Putin’s cooperation in deflanging the Iranian Mullah’s nuke program, which him promptly told us to go pound sand. And this you call sound foreign policy.
Well, I suggest that you might re-read the Constitution, as I believe you will find that the 1st responsibility of the Federal Government is National Security – all other responsibilities are secondary. Interestingly, the end of the primary protaganist of the US, the USSR, was brought about not by appeasement, but by confrontation and the threat of a missile shield that would leave our enemies vunerable to our rath while preserving our National Security. What is so “unAmerican” about putting US National Interests first but neutering our potential enemies, including the newly belligerent Russia.
“I’m hoping for a semi-isolationist, economically populist, socially libertarian party which focuses its critiques on the limits of classical liberalism, but I’m certain to be disappointed.”
You already have that in the Democrat Party, why change? Simply bring back the Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter, and “Happy Days are Here Again!”
“The last question is, given the changes in demographics in the U.S., is there any point if worrying about conservative ideology and organization. Unless you can define a model where conservative politics can function in a country with the future demographics of the U.S., then the Republicans will be as irrelevant as the Green Party or the Libertarian Party.”
Hmmm! Maybe these stats may help you see Big Picture.
“The 2009 data are based on 16 separate Gallup surveys conducted from January through September, encompassing more than 5,000 national adults per quarter. Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either ‘very conservative’ or ‘conservative.’ Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves ‘moderate,’ while the percentage calling themselves ‘very liberal’ or ‘liberal’ has consistently registered between 20% and 21% — making liberals the smallest of the three groups.”
The only problem with the Republican Party is that in the last 2 election cycles was it wasn’t seen as “conservative enough!” If they continue behave as they are in the NY 23rd Congressional District race, they will be stuck with the same image again in 2010.
On most issues we don’t have a conservative or a liberal party. On the economy and immigration there really isn’t much to choose between the parties. Marginal tax rates maybe but both parties are completely beholden to Wall Street and Wall Street’s short term interest. And the differences between the parties on health care and foreign policy don’t really fit neatly into conservative/ liberal philosophical boxes – the Democrats lay out a policy to placate some interest groups and the GOP just reflexively attacks that policy, rarely attempting to propose anything constructive.
The outlines of a politically plausible minimal program aren’t that hard to figure out:
1. Scaling back international entanglements and policies to “keep the world safe for ‘democracy.’”
2. Controlling illegal immigration, and restricting the legal kind.
3. Ending corporate welfare and moving toward a balanced budget.
4. Halting the growth of federal control, perhaps cutting it back a bit.
5. Ending affirmative action.
Unfortunately, we aren’t likely to get it. Pitchforks, anyone?
1,3, and 4 are all fine. 2 is more difficult pragmatically. I’ve given up on people being reasonable about “illegal immigration,” as the most vocal on both sides constantly conflate legal and illegal immigration.
#5 is more specifically problematic. I’m not sure that affirmative action is the bugaboo that it once was among white voters, especially now that affirmative-action-as-a-quota system has been fairly well discredited. Do that, especially when combined with the immigration statement, and you’re getting back another all-white party, and probably not pulling people like myself away from the “left” fringes.
Essentially, it’ll just tie into the teaparty section of the Republican party with a bit of isolationism. I can’t see that winning a lot.
G.O.M.
Do you really think that such policy proposals will ever attract 50% of the voters in a nation where less than half the voters will be white versus the Democrats promising to tax whites at a very high rate and spending the tax dollars on non-whites?
Also, does ‘Daniel really believe that the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus care at all about missile shields, Pakistan, middle east or Russia. To non-whites in the U.S., international policy and actions just distract the government from spending money on blacks and Hispanics.
Black and brown people don’t care about foreign policy, I guess. Truly, they only care about getting some of the white man’s money.
You’re seriously a caricature. GB2LF.
The Republicans enjoyed a 35 year foreign policy holiday after the country rejected McGovern in particular and dirty rotten hippies/liberals in general. Republicans were presumptively assumed strong and Democrats weak.
GWB squandered that legacy in six years.
Most Republicans are still in denial about their loss. They think people still trust them, that the Iraq/Afghanistan damage to their prestige is shallow, that Democrats really are weaklings who will blow their hand and the public will return to daddy.
This fantasy is understandable. The Vietnam trauma was deep, and the rejection of anti-war types was deep and abiding. It is also ahistorical. The Democratic party does not have pacifist roots or a tendency toward appeasement. Democratic foreign policy is sane and conservative and will stay that way. Nothing is pushing Democrats toward foreign policy weakness.
Nixon is the lat president before Obama who inherited a foreign policy disaster, and his political play was to continue to fight an upopoular war until public exhaustion was complete and no political price attached to withdrawl.
Obama is a canny, ruthless, and risk-averse politician. His path so far is Nixonian, which means that he will not give the Republicans a credible opening. His foreign policy will be similar to the non-insane last two years of GWB. The public at large will grow tired of fighting losing wars, and they will grow sick of the exhortations of Republicans. Finally the exhaustion will be so total that Obama can withdraw without serious political cost. Republicans will peddle the stab-in-the-back on Iraq/Afghanistan but only true believers will buy it.
The Republicans have nearly lost their advantage on foreign policy, and Obama is smart enough and cynical enough to stand back and let failing policies reveal themselves in full.
Republican foreign policy strutting and preening will more and more induce nostalgia and amusment.
“Democratic foreign policy is sane and conservative and will stay that way. Nothing is pushing Democrats toward foreign policy weakness.”
Tomtom — As much as I respect Mr. Larison and his correspondents, I must take issue with referring to sanity in foreign policy as a “conservative” virtue. Conservatives have forfeited the right to that claim.
JJM,
Maybe you can back up the snark by citing all of the writing of the Congressional Black Caucus on foreign affairs. Since South African in the 1980’s and maybe Rwanda and Darfur, the CBC could not care less about foreign affairs.
Maybe you could point to the position papers and policy initiatives on foreign affairs that have come out of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Other than open borders and unlimited immigration, the CHC does not seem to care.
What both the CBC and CHC care about is affirmative action, increased government spending, and expanding entitlements.
So two organizations account for the political feelings of the entirety of blacks and browns in the US? Assuming that you are white, do you think that the US Chamber of Commerce represents your beliefs? Or maybe AIPAC, or the teabaggers?
The GOP is one day going to control the government again. Sorry if that bothers you. However, it will surely not be the same GOP that ran the country for the last eights years, and it may have only superficial similarities with Reagan’s GOP. Now is an important time, because the state of the party is in flux, and if there were ever a time to try and change the GOP, that time is now. You can either try to do this, or you can hang out and insist that over a hundred years of political precedence is going to give way because of demographics; as if the demographics of the US were ever static or that political parties never adapted to them.
JJM
To argue that the Republicans are going to make a comeback is the same as making the argument that the Republicans will regain power in Maryland, Massachusetts, NYC, Chicago, or even California.
Many things are different now versus the past. The Democrats and Republicans have divided into a liberal party and a conservative party. The most conservative Democrat in the House of Representatives is more liberal than th emore liberal Republican.
Second, the U.S. due to the Civil Rights Act and minority-majority districting ensure that most black politicians will be very liberal. The same also applies to Hispanics.
Do you really think that a conservative party survive in an U.S. that is majority non-whites? Why would any black or Hispanic politicians aspire to be a conservative when they have no chance to be elected and are seen as a race traitor?
David Axelrod has the perfect strategy for the future of the Democrats: tax the top 5% and give the money to the core groups of the Democratic Party. What can the Republicans do against that?
Let’s review superstardestroyer’s professions thus far:
1.) Foreign policy is fundamentally uninteresting to non-whites.
2.) Non-whites vote for Democrats because they get money from them.
3.) Blacks and browns cannot be Republicans without also being race traitors.
You’re disgusting dude. None of that shit is true, and reflects such a puerile mindset that I now question whether or not you’re actually of voting age. I can’t even comprehend someone living to the age of 18 with an iota of political and social consciousness and not only holding such beliefs, but being bewildered when someone finds them offensive.
JJM,
I suggest you look up polling data on African-American and Hispanic political leanings. Foreign affairs in at the bottom but social welfare spending (government jobs, government set asides, government pork), is at the top. AFrican-American politicians support higher levels of government for everything but crime control and defense. Elected blacks and Hispancs are extremely level. Have you never watched a CBC event on C-SPAN? Have you never reviewed any of the black politican web sites. Do you really think that a group that supports reparations will ever be conservative.
Also, if you look at what is said about individuals like Michael Steele on the black political sites, then yes, a conservative black is always seen as a race traitor and is openly called an uncle tom and a house slave.
So, how do you think that a small government party can ever appeal to non-whites in the U.S? And can you make your point without the insults?