What could replace the Republican Party?

[JBeukema]

USMB lets you embed and nest quotations....

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.

has nothing to do with what I said.

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

'social structures' and 'institutions' are both ambiguous terms until you speccify and define exactly which you refer to

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.”



I’m an atheist (not an agnostic),[/quote]
if you are a gnostic atheist, you are a fool and different than any theist

and I am not threatened by religious people. Why do you feel so threatened?

I never said I felt threatened. I merely made several observations.

Other than the religious right you so much fear, where is the oligarchy the GOP favors?

The GOP has become the party of big business and the rich. The lower castes do not factor into their policies but very rarely, and when they need to imprve their PR

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.

What does that have to do with what I said?


I am more concerned with the failure of our system's transparency[/quote]

Which has occurred because the public no longer demands transparency. The masses want the government to run itself without their intervention. This is at odds with the republic.

and the education of the citizenry

Library. Google. The schools fail because the people (mostly the parents) do not demand more.

because of a biased information media.

Who is the media? Do those ion the media not arise from within the masses? Is it not the masses who decide, through the free market, what media is popularized? Stop blaming vague 'institutions' and hazy scapegoats and lay responsibility where it belongs: squarely at the feet of the citizenry.

Without a free press, the means of informing the public is little more than a state controlled media, another form of propoganda machine

This state is the People, the media is chosen by the People- the People have become complacent and lost interest in the republic. We who love liberty and understand what is needed for a republic are in the minority.

hat'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.

But they are not, so the masses themselves are to blame.

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?

I have several times, across these boards

Also why don't you reveal in a word, a political label for yourself so as to dispel any doubts?

Only a fool can be summized with a single word or title

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.

Kindly retreat to your cave

Technically speaking, we are more than a one party system.

I don't recall anyone claiming we have a one-party system.

However, in real application, we have a two party system.

As I said, we have two dominant parties who control the federal electoins

If we had a real multi-party system, the Whigs never would have disappeared.

Now you're just being stupid. ANy party that cannot draw support will die out.

The Republican Party wasn't a new party in as much as it was just a replacement of the Whigs.

If it's a replacement, then it is new. Try to maintain some logical consistency

It still left us with two dominating parties, and that is not going to change.

Because most people are to stupid to think about things and want it to be simple: are you an ass or an elephant?

 

[Oddball]

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.

Of course, that the Demopublicratican Party political monopoly has passed onerous ballot access laws, has a defacto media blackout of virtually all other candidates, and shuts all others but party men out of the presidential debates has nothing at all to do with it.

 

[007]

The republican party isn't going anywhere, so all you liberals frothing at the mouth and wetting yourself in ecstasy over the thought can just take a cold shower. Do I think that because I'm a republican and I'm just spewing partisan spin? Far from it, unfortunately. I wish a third party would emerge. I think the stranglehold that the dems and repubs have on the electorate is all but treasonous.

 

[Oddball]

I wish a third party would emerge. I think the stranglehold that the dems and repubs have on the electorate is all but treasonous.

Hear, hear!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I agree, though maybe not in the same way. I don't see the Libertarian Party making any moves whatsoever. Libertarians need to work from within the Republican Party as Ron Paul did. The Republican Party is looking for a new image, and libertarianism may be just what they need. Of course, I could be a bit biased.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

It was a little strange. The Republicans had a genuine Libertarian running, and the Libertarian Party ran a Republican. As for not having a chance on the Republican ticket, his stock has only risen since his presidential run so it turned into a very positive thing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I don't see how a couple of racists supporting one candidate would effect any others with a similar message.

 

[007]

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.

I don't see how a couple of racists supporting one candidate would effect any others with a similar message.

Hell obowma had hordes of racists supporting him and it didn't hurt him.

 

[amrchaos]

Before We get deeper into this question, I must ask


Why would anyone wish to replace any politicial party? Don't you the Democrats and Republicans made a mess already?

It is like asking "Who should we replace Twittle Dee with?"

Is not the Better question "Now How do we get rid of Twittle Dumb?"

Just asking.......

 

[Big Black Dog]

What could replace the Republicians? Do you mean, what could replace the Democrat-Lite Party? Well, maybe it's time for a new third party that has the desire to listen to what the majority of the people in this country are interested in. I think the biggest majority of folks don't lean far to the left or far to the right. Most people are somewhere in the middle where things make a little more sense. Now, we just need to find some real leadership for this new third party... A leader not interested in saying anything that needs to be said to get elected but somebody that has at least heard about how nice it is to always tell the truth.

 

[Oddball]

I agree, though maybe not in the same way. I don't see the Libertarian Party making any moves whatsoever. Libertarians need to work from within the Republican Party as Ron Paul did. The Republican Party is looking for a new image, and libertarianism may be just what they need. Of course, I could be a bit biased.

The biggest hurdle the LP -or any other party for that matter- have are ballot access laws that more or less force them to run kooks, in order to field enough candidates for the party to maintain its place on the various state ballots, without having to go through the onerous and expensive petition process.

This isn't any accident.

 

[Toro]

The death of the Republican party is greatly, greatly exaggerated.

Their current irrelevance, however, is not.

 

[Oddball]

They've been pretty much irrelevant since the blinked and caved in during the great budget showdown of '95.

 

[Soaring]

I don't remember hearing a presidential or any other political candidate tell the truth since maybe Einenhower, and that's because he wasn't a politician so was not taught by the Washington A-holes how to lie and get away with it. Obama tells a lie about every 3 sentences. I have to give him credit though. He has convinced most of our population that he is telling the truth when he lies. Quite an art......

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I agree, though maybe not in the same way. I don't see the Libertarian Party making any moves whatsoever. Libertarians need to work from within the Republican Party as Ron Paul did. The Republican Party is looking for a new image, and libertarianism may be just what they need. Of course, I could be a bit biased.

The biggest hurdle the LP -or any other party for that matter- have are ballot access laws that more or less force them to run kooks, in order to field enough candidates for the party to maintain its place on the various state ballots, without having to go through the onerous and expensive petition process.

This isn't any accident.

Ballot access is certainly a huge problem when you've gotta spend most of the money you're able to raise on getting on the ballot, and then in some cases you've gotta spend more money trying to stay on the ballot. Another problem is getting into debates, even at state and local levels. The Republican and Democratic duopoly is able to use their resources to keep out any third party challengers.

 

[DamnYankee]

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)?

What? Only liberals are permitted to be progressive?

 

[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)?

What? Only liberals are permitted to be progressive?

How did you draw that moronic conclusion?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Something would have to replace the Republican Party

Why would something have to replace it? for example If you have two malignant tumors on your brain and your doctor manages to successfully remove one of them, do you ask , "hey Doc when are you going to replace that tumor you removed"? or would you ask "hey Doc when can we get rid of the other one"?. If the Republican Party ends up in the dust bin of history personally my next question is going be "when can we send the Democratic Party along to keep it company?".

 

[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 political party with a list of positions on every issue seems to leave some issues left hanging. For example illegal immigration. Here in the Southwest there people that see northern Mexico and the border states as one region. The border is viewed as an inconvenience Most of us believe we have a legal border with another country. A border that leaks like a sieve! Neither the Republicans or Democrats are offering real solutions. Wouldn't it be better if a few immigration parties could work it out? Do we have to drag issues like economy or Iraq into it?

If smaller single issued political parties were formed we might be able to solve problems without all the labels and sniping. Voters might be able to vote for issues instead of images and rehetoric.

 

[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 political party with a list of positions on every issue seems to leave some issues left hanging. For example illegal immigration. Here in the Southwest there people that see northern Mexico and the border states as one region. The border is viewed as an inconvenience Most of us believe we have a legal border with another country. A border that leaks like a sieve! Neither the Republicans or Democrats are offering real solutions. Wouldn't it be better if a few immigration parties could work it out? Do we have to drag issues like economy or Iraq into it?

If smaller single issued political parties were formed we might be able to solve problems without all the labels and sniping. Voters might be able to vote for issues instead of images and rehetoric.

Yeah, wouldn't we all be better of if we could just come to a reasonable agreement on all these big issues? Hmmmm....wonder why no ones thought of that before? Sorry Derek, don't think that would solve very much of anything. These 20 parties would have to form a coalition around larger ideas and then compete with the other large coalition of counter ideas and ideals.