What could replace the Republican Party?

[Derek_Plumber]

Some speculate that the Republican Party could just disappear after the last election. Where would the Evangelicals go? Something would have to replace the Republican Party, would the Democrats split into conservatives and liberals? What about big business, would they try to be everywhere? What about those elusive moderate Republicans, where would they go? Could a totally new party develop, and who would be their members? No need to argue about this, anyones guess will be interesting.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

I think about twenty new partys would evolve, each based on a different issue like environment, military, health care, etc. These parties would negotiate and trade support much like the British system. A Religion Party would be one of the most interesting to watch.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I think about twenty new partys would evolve, each based on a different issue like environment, military, health care, etc. These parties would negotiate and trade support much like the British system. A Religion Party would be one of the most interesting to watch.

I would support any party that espoused Conservative principles. Dem, Repub, Indy, whatever.
Conservative meaning Low Taxes and Smaller Government.

 

[Sweet Willy]

What Could Replace The Republican Party?

Voting rights for cow manure?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Democratic Party?

But the Republican Party isn't going anywhere.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

You're going to need Republicans to end this disaster sooner than you think.

 

[JBeukema]

I think about twenty new partys would evolve, each based on a different issue like environment, military, health care, etc. These parties would negotiate and trade support much like the British system. A Religion Party would be one of the most interesting to watch.

I would support any party that espoused Conservative principles. Dem, Repub, Indy, whatever.
Conservative meaning Low Taxes and Smaller Government.

Really, now?

 

[American Horse]

I think about twenty new partys would evolve, each based on a different issue like environment, military, health care, etc. These parties would negotiate and trade support much like the British system. A Religion Party would be one of the most interesting to watch.

I would support any party that espoused Conservative principles. Dem, Repub, Indy, whatever.
Conservative meaning Low Taxes and Smaller Government.

I have always taken my own conservative philosophy from the Latin word conservō (conserv-āre = to save, to hold against, to preserve) therefore the philosophy of conservatism seen its best way should be aimed at preserving and conserving what has proven to be good and viable (efficacious), but allow to be changed what has proven to be flawed and unviable or not efficacious.

First among the things to be preserved are the social structures known as “institutions.” One institution worth preserving is first the US Constitution and then all the institutions that flow from it, law and the rule of law. Standing apart from government are other protected institutions like religion, marriage, and many more, but last but not least is the conservative belief in individualism; the belief that every person must make the decisions that are best for him or herself, and such decisions cannot be made for them.

These are the things “conservatism” in the main stands for. A major party must have one name, not a series of words making up a name, which then become acronyms. The word names Democrat and Republican fit perfectly the types of systems they would foster at their best intent. But they are no longer adequate, and have become much maligned to the degree that a large part of the citizenry doesn’t know what they stand for.

We are supposed to believe that Democrat(s) stand for the little guy (but the party really embodies the government and bureaucracy), and republicans stand for the big guy (but really free enterprise and individualism). Big corporations and their CEOs have more to do with the Democrat Party than the Republican Party, while Democrats are able to accuse Republicans of being fosterers of those same big corporations. Unfortunately that is the case because Republicans see that the law should always be equally and indiscriminately applied to all for the system to work.

A large government presence, and even taxation are not generally opposed by large corporations, because they are seen as leveling the playing field, and are able to be gamed by the phalanx of attorneys, accountants, and consultants they have available for their service. But the regulations and taxation big government enacts are anathema to the small business operator because the costs and effort to comply are gross distractions to operating a small business or a job shop.

So.......What might a party which embodied Conservative First Values be called? In America, for a while the things that those values were about and which were known as “republican” values were all about free enterprise and liberty, and that's what they should be returned to today to capture the public's imagination with a vision worth pursuing or following.

If there is a split all splinter groups will eventually fall into two main political parties. Overarching ideas and ideals should ensure that will be the case in a Federal/Executive system like ours.

.

 

[JBeukema]

I have always taken my own conservative philosophy from the Latin word conservō (conserv-āre = to save, to hold against, to preserve) therefore the philosophy of conservatism seen its best way should be aimed at preserving and conserving what has proven to be good and viable (efficacious), but allow to be changed what has proven to be flawed and unviable or not efficacious.

isn't that more or less Progressisivsm? You know, like the progressivism of the Early GOP (Lincoln through the early 60s)?

First among the things to be preserved are the social structures known as “institutions.”

By 'social structures' I certainly hope ou are not supporting the current caste system

One institution worth preserving is first the US Constitution and then all the institutions that flow from it, law and the rule of law.

not all that came or comes from the Constitution is good.

Standing apart from government are other protected institutions like religion, marriage, and many more, but last but not least is the conservative belief in individualism; the belief that every person must make the decisions that are best for him or herself, and such decisions cannot be made for them.

If you truly value individualism, you would be an anarchist. the Republic was founded on limited individualism and the rule of law, which requires social contract and the loss of certain liberties to further the common good.

We are supposed to believe that Democrat(s) stand for the little guy (but the party really embodies the government and bureaucracy), and republicans stand for the big guy (but really free enterprise and individualism).

Democracy favors the rule of the masses (mob rule), but the modern democrativ Party of the united States leans more towards a 'Social Democracy' that is inherently collectivist and somewhat elitist in nature. The Republic favors the rule of law, but the modern GOP favors its own oligarchy, which places the religious right and its morality above equality before the law and individualism

So.......What might a party which embodied Conservative First Values be called? In America, for a while the things that those values were about and which were known as “republican” values were all about free enterprise and liberty, and that's what they should be returned to today to capture the public's imagination with a vision worth pursuing or following.

the GOP was born of the Whigs who fell victim to the purges, and rose to power because they promised change.

If there is a split all splinter groups will eventually fall into two main political parties.

That is not true by default and is not the case in all European nations. Modern Americans are just too stupid to realize that this was never meant to be a 2-party oligarchy,. so they buy into self-fulfilling prophecies and the fallacy of 'only two real options'

Overarching ideas and ideals should ensure that will be the case in a Federal/Executive system like ours.

Our current system is wrought with fraud and impossible tio manage. While build on good ideals, the current form is not a good system

 

[auditor0007]

I think about twenty new partys would evolve, each based on a different issue like environment, military, health care, etc. These parties would negotiate and trade support much like the British system. A Religion Party would be one of the most interesting to watch.

There is a reason this country has a two party system. It is not that third or fourth parties don't have any good ideas. It is due to the fact that our government is not set up as a parliamentary system. It would not be easy to build coalitions. And as for choosing a President, it could cause a real mess if one candidate did not receive the majority of electoral votes.

In a parliamentary system, coalitions are built and the prime minister is usually chosen by the legislature, by whomever can put together a majority coalition. If the coalition collapses, the prime minister usually ends up out of office. There are advantages to that system, over our own, as a prime minister can be removed much more quickly. However, the constant building of various coalitions many times just interferes with the work to be done. More time is spent trying to figure out who will be running the show than anyone actually running it.

With our system, you don't see as many one issue candidates and fewer people vote based on single issues. That is why each party must accomodate many people with differing views. Bottom line though, is that both parties will be around for a long time.

 

[Amanda]

Some speculate that the Republican Party could just disappear after the last election. Where would the Evangelicals go? Something would have to replace the Republican Party, would the Democrats split into conservatives and liberals? What about big business, would they try to be everywhere? What about those elusive moderate Republicans, where would they go? Could a totally new party develop, and who would be their members? No need to argue about this, anyones guess will be interesting.

I think the current climate is ripe for Libertarians to make their move.

 

[Soaring]

Some speculate that the Republican Party could just disappear after the last election. Where would the Evangelicals go? Something would have to replace the Republican Party, would the Democrats split into conservatives and liberals? What about big business, would they try to be everywhere? What about those elusive moderate Republicans, where would they go? Could a totally new party develop, and who would be their members? No need to argue about this, anyones guess will be interesting.

I think the current climate is ripe for Libertarians to make their move.

BS. The Libertarians lost out with Ron Paul's run. Yeah, I know he ran on the Repub ticket, but he couldn't have possibly won on the Lib ticket.. Turns out he didn't have a chance on the repub ticket either.

 

[editec]

I think the Republican party could fragment into the bible thumpers, the blueblood yankees, and the white supremicists.

The Dems could break up into the greeniacs, the geriatrics, the pissed off bluecollars, the minorities and of course the blueblooded yankees.

 

[justabubba]

Some speculate that the Republican Party could just disappear after the last election. Where would the Evangelicals go? Something would have to replace the Republican Party, would the Democrats split into conservatives and liberals? What about big business, would they try to be everywhere? What about those elusive moderate Republicans, where would they go? Could a totally new party develop, and who would be their members? No need to argue about this, anyones guess will be interesting.

I think the current climate is ripe for Libertarians to make their move.

BS. The Libertarians lost out with Ron Paul's run. Yeah, I know he ran on the Repub ticket, but he couldn't have possibly won on the Lib ticket.. Turns out he didn't have a chance on the repub ticket either.

the republicans refusing to back Ron Paul, someone with a real message, was not unlike the democrats running obvious loser candidates like kerry and gore ... instead of the alternative, viable candidates who refused to drink the party kool aid

 

[Annie]

I think the current climate is ripe for Libertarians to make their move.

BS. The Libertarians lost out with Ron Paul's run. Yeah, I know he ran on the Repub ticket, but he couldn't have possibly won on the Lib ticket.. Turns out he didn't have a chance on the repub ticket either.

the republicans refusing to back Ron Paul, someone with a real message, was not unlike the democrats running obvious loser candidates like kerry and gore ... instead of the alternative, viable candidates who refused to drink the party kool aid

The problem Ron Paul had attracting conservatives were some of his supporters and the groups they allied with. Ignoring this will not bode well for LP or Libertarian candidates that run as GOP.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're going to need Republicans to end this disaster sooner than you think.

We are not out of the last Republican disaster yet. We may yet see the Second Great Republican Depression. Besides, I see no Republican Party at present. Just a bunch of doped out Rushpublicans.

If fact, it does bring up the question, if all the dopers and closet gays were to be kicked out of the Rushpublican Party, would there be a Rushpublican Party left?

 

[JBeukema]

There is a reason this country has a two party system.

We do not have a two-party system, have two dominant parties. A two-party system would be a system that only allowed for two parties to exist. Smaller party members oft hold positions at the local and state level, but the money present in the republicrats , as well as their corruption and 'favors' for bug business and special interests, enables them to maintain a deathgrip on the White House and the majority f Congress.

. And as for choosing a President, it could cause a real mess if one candidate did not receive the majority of electoral votes.

It's happened before. America elects its president by the plurality, not by the majority. While the majority is desired and is usually the case, there are past precedents for scenarios where no candidate gets 51% or more of the vote.

In a parliamentary system, coalitions are built and the prime minister is usually chosen by the legislature, by whomever can put together a majority coalition

In other words, the best social networking and the best makers (in practice0 of under-the-table agreements...

With our system, you don't see as many one issue candidates and fewer people vote based on single issues.

No, it's all 3 or four 'litmus tests'. In practice:
-Republican: 'no new taxes', support our troops, (forced) democracy for all, (the degree to which we must bend over for the religious right varies), oil will last forever
-Democrat: 'the evil rich white corporations must die so we can support our special interests', america is evil and so is oil
-libertarian: sick of the other two.

Most people are too stupid and complacent to really think, so they just go with the party that says 3 things they like first

That is why each party must accomodate many people with differing views. Bottom line though, is that both parties will be around for a long time.

Not if the GOP keeps 'purging' itself of moderates and smart people like the Whigs kicking out all who opposed slavery- which actually gave birth to the Republicans

I think the current climate is ripe for Libertarians to make their move.

Nope. They had their chance last election and they were nowhere to be found

The problem Ron Paul had attracting conservatives were some of his supporters and the groups they allied with. Ignoring this will not bode well for LP or Libertarian candidates that run as GOP.

Reasons Republicans/Neo-cons hqate Ron Paul
-Lack of pragmatism/realism (gold standard)
-Identified w/ 9-11 truthers (the 'Blame America First' folk that neocons love to group their enemies into)
-He is actually a fiscal conservative

I think the Republican party could fragment into the bible thumpers, the blueblood yankees, and the white supremicists.

The Dems could break up into the greeniacs, the geriatrics, the pissed off bluecollars, the minorities and of course the blueblooded yankees.

The KKK is Democrat, just so you know

 

[American Horse]

I have always taken my own conservative philosophy from the Latin word conservō (conserv-āre = to save, to hold against, to preserve) therefore the philosophy of conservatism seen its best way should be aimed at preserving and conserving what has proven to be good and viable (efficacious), but allow to be changed what has proven to be flawed and unviable or not efficacious.

isn't that more or less Progressisivsm? You know, like the progressivism of the Early GOP (Lincoln through the early 60s)?

The worst feature of the earliest conservative party (the Optimates of ancient Rome) was that they resisted any and all change to their ideal system. Consequently, eventually there was the revolt of the plebs endangering the nation/state. Conservatism must be willing to accept genuinely efficacious change to the system agreed upon by a political majority or put to the states via a constitutional amendment. A party that can’t accept any change will not survive as a party.

American Horse - First among the things to be preserved are the social structures known as “institutions.”

By 'social structures' I certainly hope you are not supporting the current caste system
I said “known as ‘institutions’ ” I thought I was unambiguous.

not all that came or comes from the Constitution is good.
That is why I said: “but allow to be changed what has proven to be flawed and unviable or not efficacious.”

If you truly value individualism, you would be an anarchist. the Republic was founded on limited individualism and the rule of law, which requires social contract and the loss of certain liberties to further the common good.

So…? I believe in building on or changing what is, rather than tearing down.

Democracy favors the rule of the masses (mob rule), but the modern democrativ Party of the united States leans more towards a 'Social Democracy' that is inherently collectivist and somewhat elitist in nature. The Republic favors the rule of law, but the modern GOP favors its own oligarchy, which places the religious right and its morality above equality before the law and individualism

Nonsense; Of course religious people, like any other faction look to the system for a place for their ideals to be realized; parties are ‘grand coalitions’. I’m an atheist (not an agnostic), and I am not threatened by religious people. Why do you feel so threatened? Other than the religious right you so much fear, where is the oligarchy the GOP favors? BTW, in my post I was speaking for the emergence of a true “Conservative” party based more on a meritocracy and not a revamp of the GOP.

the GOP was born of the Whigs who fell victim to the purges, and rose to power because they promised change.

And that is precisely what should and can come of this chaos in the economic system. People will be driven to more private enterprise, through their own efforts rather than employment in large corporations as was the case in the past.

If there is a split all splinter groups will eventually fall into two main political parties.

That is not true by default and is not the case in all European nations. Modern Americans are just too stupid to realize that this was never meant to be a 2-party oligarchy,. so they buy into self-fulfilling prophecies and the fallacy of 'only two real options'

Our system is not a system from which the chief executive officer is a creature of the parliament. Ours is hopefully a meritocracy, from which the chief executive moves to the top through any number of avenues; governorships, military service, mayoralties, the federal legislature. This requires grand coalitions to fold into a single executive all the constituent elements of a philosophical tendency.

Overarching ideas and ideals should ensure that will be the case in a Federal/Executive system like ours.

Our current system is wrought with fraud and impossible tio manage. While build on good ideals, the current form is not a good system.

I am more concerned with the failure of our system's transparency and the education of the citizenry because of a biased information media. Without a free press, the means of informing the public is little more than a state controlled media, another form of propoganda machine. Competition can change that and make it more informative, but it's so much harder when large segments of that "press" can survive without a profit, or especially if they become wards of the state. That's why for our system to work, and the public to be adequately informed, the people have to be willing to get their information from varied sources, and be willing to listen to criticism of their own side.

Finally, Why don't you lay it on the line and inform us what is presently in the US Constitution you find to be most egregious or not efficacious? Also why don't you reveal in a word, a political label for yourself so as to dispel any doubts?

 

[sealybobo]

I think the Republican party could fragment into the bible thumpers, the blueblood yankees, and the white supremicists.

The Dems could break up into the greeniacs, the geriatrics, the pissed off bluecollars, the minorities and of course the blueblooded yankees.

I think we should round up all the Republicans and then at the same time round up all the retards at the special olympics and then make them switch and see of the retards don't do better.

 

[auditor0007]

There is a reason this country has a two party system.

We do not have a two-party system, have two dominant parties. A two-party system would be a system that only allowed for two parties to exist. Smaller party members oft hold positions at the local and state level, but the money present in the republicrats , as well as their corruption and 'favors' for bug business and special interests, enables them to maintain a deathgrip on the White House and the majority f Congress.

. And as for choosing a President, it could cause a real mess if one candidate did not receive the majority of electoral votes.

It's happened before. America elects its president by the plurality, not by the majority. While the majority is desired and is usually the case, there are past precedents for scenarios where no candidate gets 51% or more of the vote.



In other words, the best social networking and the best makers (in practice0 of under-the-table agreements...





No, it's all 3 or four 'litmus tests'. In practice:
-Republican: 'no new taxes', support our troops, (forced) democracy for all, (the degree to which we must bend over for the religious right varies), oil will last forever
-Democrat: 'the evil rich white corporations must die so we can support our special interests', america is evil and so is oil
-libertarian: sick of the other two.

Most people are too stupid and complacent to really think, so they just go with the party that says 3 things they like first



Not if the GOP keeps 'purging' itself of moderates and smart people like the Whigs kicking out all who opposed slavery- which actually gave birth to the Republicans



Nope. They had their chance last election and they were nowhere to be found

The problem Ron Paul had attracting conservatives were some of his supporters and the groups they allied with. Ignoring this will not bode well for LP or Libertarian candidates that run as GOP.

Reasons Republicans/Neo-cons hqate Ron Paul
-Lack of pragmatism/realism (gold standard)
-Identified w/ 9-11 truthers (the 'Blame America First' folk that neocons love to group their enemies into)
-He is actually a fiscal conservative

I think the Republican party could fragment into the bible thumpers, the blueblood yankees, and the white supremicists.

The Dems could break up into the greeniacs, the geriatrics, the pissed off bluecollars, the minorities and of course the blueblooded yankees.

The KKK is Democrat, just so you know

Technically speaking, we are more than a one party system. However, in real application, we have a two party system. If we had a real multi-party system, the Whigs never would have disappeared. The Republican Party wasn't a new party in as much as it was just a replacement of the Whigs. It still left us with two dominating parties, and that is not going to change.

If you truly believe the Republican Party is going to disappear, then you must believe that it will just be replaced by a new party, so what would be the difference in the end?