schism within the Republicans-- how does the party stay together?

[liberalcapitalist]

The Republican Party is not truly a national party, but a coalition of various interests, loosely connected. Where they differ from liberals is in their ability to reconcile with one another for a common good-- or better yet, in their eyes, the lesser of two common evils.

#1: Goldwater Libertarians: Feel that all government is bad. Less government is good. State's rights, though not from a racist perspective. Their views on subjects such as gay rights, abortion, etc. are varient, but tend to fall on the moderate or liberal side of things.

#2: Religious Right: You know these guys well. However, I think there is a difference between the typical RR and the Buchanite variety. The true RR cares nothing about immigration, job loss, free trade, etc. They care only about the promotion of Christian ideals, or what they perceive them to be.

#3: Billionare Boys Club: The guys with the $100,000 tax cuts from Bush. They could care less about abortion, gays, religion, or anything else-- they just want their money. The most powerful, though smallest group.

#4: The Cultural Republicans: They've voted Republican because they always have. They're not really libertarians, they're not all that religious, and they're certainly not billionaires. These people are like poor southern whites who endorsed slavery in the 1800's, even though it worked agains them. They are contributing to their own downfall, yet are blind to this, and NOTHING will ever make most of them see.

#5: Bushites: These are political insiders (very small group) who believe in military pre-emption, world domination, and subversion of democracy. They throw bones to the religious right, and are funded by the corporations that dominate group #2, but they've completely abandonded the Goldwater Libertarians and the protectionists (too small of a group to count) to the extent that they could bolt from the party in '04.

As progressives, we have to save the saveables, and ignore those who will never listen. Religious righties are off limits-- they do not listen to reason as a matter of practice. Billionaires (I'm exagerating, of course) are small in number and unlikely to jump ship; though if they were smart they were (Bush's economy will eventually make everyone poor). The Cultural Republicans are actually probably the HARDEST group to reach, since they don't vote based on anything other than familiarity. They don't follow the news or issues, so they're, for the most part, a lost cause. And the libertarian types; well, they would probably rather just stay home than to vote for a Democrat.... With all this said, I think the best strategy is to somehow find a third-party candidate who could unite some of these interests. Buchanan is teh best candidate. he is a straight-talker who could appeal to the cultural types; he has appeal with the RR; and he could possibly even swing some libertarians, despite his theocratic social views. He says there's no chance of him running, but is there anything we could do to change his mind?

[salinen]

1. Huh?

You don't mean Patrick Buchanan do you? I'm going to bed.

[He loved Big Brother]

2. I asked a similar question in an old thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=469218

Kinda befuddling.

[LoZoccolo]

3. I would split the cultural Republicans into two.

There's the group you mention, and then there's a lot of people that are middle-class who maybe think it makes them seem more responsible or ambitious or preppy or whatever to be a Republican - maybe voting Democratic makes them think they'll need social programs and they don't wanna think that. They are more like rich-people wannabes; I call them "vanitycons".

[Iris]

4. I keep waiting for the implosion, but it just never seems to happen.

:nuke:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GregD]

7. Rather than lurk, why not stay around and engage?

Where do we have things in common? Do you not have any issues with the state of our Nation? Is everything really "just fine"?

I'm not trying to pick a fight - I'd really like to know your candid views, and understand where you are coming from. Because if we don't find a way to overcome the differences, many fear the future would have problematic prospects.

[liberalcapitalist]

9. welcome, Republican friend

There is much division among Democrats and left-leaning voters; yes, I agree. But our disagreements are not so fundamentally at odds. There is literally ZERO that the neocon Bush Administration offers to a Barry Goldwater Libertarian voter-- ZERO. The platforms are at exact odds. The BGL are also in direct opposition with the religious right. There is very very little shared in common between Buchanan protectionist types and the Bush admin; and again, ZERO in common between the mega-wealthy and the religious right. Whereas the Dems may have a collection of "pet issues" as you put it, the Repubs are basically a loose coalition of groups that are directly at adds.

Though I disagree, I certainly respect the intellectually rationalized positions held by libertarian types, or especially, "traditional conservatives" (i.e. classical liberals) of the Milton Friedman school of thought. These people used to BE the Republican Party, but they are not represented whatsoever by the Bush Administration.

[Speed8098]

13. An oxymoron

That's what we have here.

How does someone who uses the moniker, "nobucks", as in poor, consider themselves republican?

I've always wondered why anyone below the level of the top 1% of earners would call themselves republican? What is the benefit of aligning yourself with that party? What has the republican party done to make your life better?

I'm not being facetious, I really am curious.

[Bandit]

23. Why were we Democrats before Bush* came into being?

Your argument is quite vapid. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

[regnaD kciN]

10. It doesn't, because...

...they have a common enemy, called "the Sixties."

While those of us who lived through it from a leftist perspective might have seen it as a time of liberation, cultural excitement, social action, higher consciousness, and all those sort of "groovy" things, those of a traditional bent have seen it as the years of a new barbarism -- sexual immorality, heavy drug use, abandonment of traditional values, "big government" trying to create a welfare state, "coddling criminals," aborting "unborn children," long-haired young people rioting while burning American flags and waving Vietcong ones, etc., etc.

Now, it matters little that the traditionalist view is at least as unbalanced as that of the most addled aging hippie. (Or, for that matter, that some of the supposed "evils" of the Sixties were remedies for very real evils of earlier eras, such as decades of racial segregation, that the traditionalists seemed to approve of.) Regardless, it's a view that has psychological resonance for those who, like most people, possess a sort of non-political "conservatism" that doesn't like seeing the rules change when they were doing quite well, thank you, under the old ones.

This "cultural war" attitude would probably have eventually died out as those alive at the time did, except for one factor: the rise of the Religious Right. Evangelical Protestantism (especially the "pre-millenial" type that sees the Second Coming right around the corner and fixates on the Book of Revelation as an exact fortelling of that time) has a love of us-versus-them "spiritual warfare," and has always held to a theological view that, just before God intervenes, the world will descend into a barbarous, irreligious chaos where evil will, temporarily, dominate. With the merger of conservatism and fundamentalism, the correlation between "the time of tribulation" and "the Sixties" became a driving principle, even for those who hadn't been around at that time. Furthermore, even non-religious conservatives, seeing the energizing effect for their side arising from this sort of caricature, quickly developed a secular version of the same cartoon, in which the war was against America and its "culture" (i.e. capitalism, military strength, discipline, and the like) instead of God. But the enemy and the caricature were the same.

And that explains much about the phenomenon known as modern conservatism, and how it has achieved a position of dominance. It has managed to create a mythology which has caught on, revolving around a common enemy raised, in their eyes, to the level of the demonic. It explains everything from the willingness of right-wing Christians to support obviously-unChristian behavior such as racism (because those calling for "multiculturalism" are the same ones who advocate homosexual marriage and legalized abortion) to the sheer obsessive hatred aimed at Bill Clinton (who, from his womanizing to his admitted draft-dodging, practically personified all the evils of "the Sixties" in their minds, and was now their leader). Why do they stay together, with so little in common? Because, if they don't, liberals will take control and bring "the Sixties" back again.

(I admit this analysis leaves me with little hope for the immediate future. A myth such as conservatives have created is unlikely to be abandoned by "believers" -- religious or secular -- any time soon. My only hope, for the long term, is that we may be seeing the same sort of excesses at this point that will allow us to create an equally-effective counter-myth in the future.)

[liberalcapitalist]

11. good post

What I think the left MUST do:

1. Wrap ourselves in the flag. Patriotism is not owned by the right. The bulk of their ideology is in direct opposition with patriotism-- forced patriotism, for example, or coerced patriotism, is false patriotism. America stands for capitalism, strong defense, etc., but also FREEDOM. Freedom to dissent. We need to wrap ourselves in the flag with each of our criticisms of the right.

2. Embrace capitalism. Capitalism is not a dirty word. We have let the right hijack capitalism and convert it into something it's not. Their version of capitalism is corporate cronyism, or in their words, "the absence of government regulation." our version of capitalism MUST be "competition." We need to embrace a people's capitalism, a "liberalcapitalism," that reinvigorates the common man and woman and mobilizes their votes against those who support economic totalitarian fascism and call it capitalism.

3. Embrace Christ. I would prefer to leave religion and religious imagery out of politics, but for those of us who are Christians, we must not allow the right to hijack Jesus. JESUS WAS A LIBERAL. But you must do more than say this. You must really LIVE WWJD? Would Jesus support national healthcare? YES! Would Jesus support capital punishment? NO! etc.

We have let the right hijack the flag and patriotism, capitalism, and Christianity; leaving us anti-Americanism, communism and socialism (seen as evils by the public at large), and atheism (also seen as evil by the public at large). We need to reclaim these things and turn the tables. The right is NOT patriotic, NOT capitalistic, and NOT Christian.

[drdigi420]

24. great except the jesus part

freedom of religion should be the call

point out the bastardization of christianity by the right wing if you must

but you risk alienating the intellectual left by tying anything to myths of religion

if you are just speaking of the acts of jesus the man, then mebbe we agree somewhat, but i really dont think religious fundies can tell the difference between the man jesus and the myth of jesus

[OldEurope]

17. excellent analysis. But how do you explain,

that in Europe or Canada the right wingers did not rise in the same way? I mean: we have a sort of strike back of the pendulum from the right, but far away from that in America. How come, that the religious right doesn´t rise here? We had the same "revolutions" in the sixties.
Is it a thing of better education? Or a thing of LESS RIGHTS or less freedom in Europe?

[Brian_Expat]

6. When Roy Moore runs for prez

The RR vote will be seriously challenged and split between him and Bush.

[proud patriot]

8. It doesn't stay together ...See Sigline

[Iverson]

12. a feeling of injury delivered by their inferiors

These people believe, as many do, that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket, and they are the only thing that stands between civilization and the barbarian hordes. Having possession of the one best way to look at the world, they are by divine right entitled to regain the utopia they never had, spoiled by those dirty others.

The barbarian hordes, the ones at fault for the world's ills, are people who want to deprive them of money and power and to expose them to upsetting images and even live in the same neighborhoods. They used to be communists, but now they are hippies, blacks, feminists, atheists and other non-Christians, poor people, gays and lesbians, academics, the ACLU, birth control advocates, gun control advocates, and abortion providers.

A visceral loathing is necessary to prevent critical inquiry. That is why none of them will ever fault Newt Gingrich for infidelities deeper than Bill Clinton's, for example. That is why they don't mind a failure to count civilian casualties in war, since those people don't matter and the Geneva Convention is just mushy liberalism (hoccch, ptoo!) anyway.

It's a great big world of Cartesian dualism, and their perceived victimhood is hard to break, even though most of the world sees it as a preposterous lie. Imagine, though, the moral crisis that would ensue for people forced to reject their belief in killing or harming others. Now, who seriously thinks that that will happen any time soon?

And to think that some people cannot be moved from a slavish theoretical devotion to bipartisanship!

[salinen]

14. Iverson

Grandpa Iver would be proud of that well thought out message. BravO!

[Iverson]

22. Thanks, salinen, but post #10 was more thorough.

Still, all good will is cheerfully accepted. Happy new year!

:toast:

[INTELBYTES]

15. My guess to the answer to this question is leadership.

The republicans are united under one leader, bush. However dangerous we see him, he leads their party and all republicans are united under him.

Right now I see a struggle for leadership within our party. I see Dean/Gore trying to take control, while McAuliffe/Clintons trying to maintain their power.

This fight may not be a bad thing in the long run, but right now it is splitting the party between liberal/progressive and the centrist side of our party.

It is a time of redefining our party, but if we don't rally under one banner soon, it may be a feeding frenzy for the republicans.

[NavajoRug]

16. I'm not sure I understand your point here . . .

Any party that operates successfully on a national level is really nothing more than a "collection of interests." This is why parties like the Green, Libertarian, Constitutional, etc. never win anything -- they are ideologically pure, but too narrowly focused to appeal to voters who don't hold these "pet" issues dearly.

[Yupster]

18. The Glue that holds the Republican Party together is

TAX CUTS .....

The traditional Republicans and Libertarians will put up with all kinds of what they think is nonsense from the religious right as long as they get their tax cuts. It's why Bush will face no serious primary opposition. He delivered on the tax cuts.

The problem group could be the religious right which can be discouraged if it doesn't make any progress for too long. The partial birth abortion ban will show them they're secure with Bush too.

I think Bush learned the lesson from his dad. He will go into the election with a secure base of support. Especially if the Democratic nominee goes into the campaign promising to raise taxes.

[OldEurope]

19. Did the normal folks really have a benefits from

tax cuts? I mean: less health care, less social benefits, worse education and so on, this should normally bring the majority to oppose to this government.
Perhaps the glue is more in the media. As many people hear daily in various programmes nothing but B*SH*T... perhaps they are not ABLE to see where your country is going to.

[Yupster]

20. Yes

"Normal folks" would have gotten two benefits from the tax cuts.

A 10 % income tax bracket was carved out of the 15 % bracket, so anyone who pays any income tax at all, now starts paying at a 10 % rate rather than a 15 % rate. That's a big drop.

If the normal folks have kids, they would have benefitted from raising the per child credit from $ 400 per kid, to $ 600 to $ 1,000.

The less health care, worse schools, less social benefits would depend on the individual.What social benefits were important to them? Has their healthcare changed? Have their local schools gotten better or worse? It will be different from family to family.

On edit I should have noted that normal folks who make over $ 40,000 per year will have seen their 28 % tax rate go down to 25 %.

[UTUSN]

21. Their Reason for Staying Together

is the same as what ours ought to be, that there is no way there is anywhere else to go. But they are more hardcore, voting percentage almost TOTAL. They also do their sniping of themselves relatively behind the scenes as opposed to our outright bashing and slashing. For us, there is a vast number of our natural partisans who DON'T VOTE AT ALL, then there's another segment who have to be INSPIRED (or "be in love" as Big Dog puts it) in order to get out there. And then some of our natural partisans go to other outlets.

As for our guest Repub, above, who said we are united by "hatred of (Shrub)"-------uh, despite his ridiculousness of calling himself "another George W." (as in WASHINGTON), as he did at his 2000 convention, he hasn't been around for the 200 year history of the DemocratIC Party to be responsible for unifying us. I suppose "hatred of CLINTON" is what kept the Repub Party together. (Notice I didn't use the nicknames for Repub here out of deference to our guest.)