The Romney GOP
During the GOP primaries I gravitated towards Romney and thought that he would make a much better candidate than McCain. In retrospect it is obvious that Romney would have been in his element during this economic crisis. Since there is nothing we can do about the past election, we can at the very least begin helping GOP to move towards remaking itself into the Romney party.
Though it is early to speculate what strong GOP candidates might emerge for 2012, it is obvious to me that Romney could be one of the strongest. He is relatively young. He looks presidential. He is very intelligent. But most importantly of course he is an economic powerhouse. And as a former NorthEastern Governor he will be rightfully regarded as a moderate conservative and imo he will need to appeal to the Center to increase support.
That's not to say that he does not have huge liabilities, he does. He is a serious flip flopper. He is also Mormon. But if in 2-3 years our economy is still floundering, Romney's stock would skyrocket. Intelligent Presidential Capitalists are in high regard not just on the Right but also in the Center. Add to that Experience and Competency and you got a recipe for a great candidate especially if Obama's New New Deal does not deliver all the fantastical results the Left is hoping for.
The GOP's strength is not in the Social Conservatism for that is a diminishing constituency. The leftward social move is an irreversible trend and winning elections on the rightward social platform will soon become impossible. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a defensible economic system which has created amazing growth all around the World and is almost infinitely adaptable to various social conditions. The Republican Party used to be the Capitalist Party. Let's release the mystical Social Conservatism and get back to inspiring the American People through thoughtful and rational Economic policy that will stand in stark contrast to the Economic Left's ascendancy.
Romney could be the new leader of the reformed GOP. Palin and Huckabee must be refused. They are the agents of the past and have no real future in these United States. Republican Party best realize that fast and hopefully before the next election.
- Ender's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
I agree that it would be a wise move for the GOP
Romney is at least a grown-up.
But it appears that the party is more interested in going even harder right and hitching their wagons to the "dingbat" wing of the party..... led by either Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal.
Down that way lies a LONG wait in the wilderness for the GOP.
It is because of that, that I am FERVENTLY behind Ms. Palin and/or Mr. Jindal becoming the GOP standard-bearers. ;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
it's going to be a struggle
But the rational has to win out if the GOP wants to have a chance in the future. I can see the GOP coalition falling apart if Social Conservatives prevail. Maybe GOP can fall apart into 2 parties of social and economic conservatives.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
And yet she can't count on your vote in the primaries?
Unless you are willing to cross over to make it happen, this is nothing more than garden variety concern trolling on your part. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It's just a wish.
Being that I'm not a Republican, it is not my place to help pick who the Republicans choose to represent them.
Every organization has a right to choose their leaders. Organizations that I don't belong to shouldn't get any input from me.
But I can have a rooting interest, can't I?
I root for Joe Paterno to lose every fucking game he ever coaches, but that doesn't mean I'm a "concern troll" if I don't get on the field and work to make it happen.
Your post is illogical.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
There's nothing illogical in my post.
Why are you trying to make this into something it is not? What is your definition of concern trolling?
My definition is along the lines of making arguments about the choices and policies of "the other side" in an effort to sway them in some direction which you hope will actually be benificial to you, not them, under the guise of helping them.
Even so, if your interest is only a rooting interest then I stand corrected. I guess you can root for whomever you want when you are not a participant.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
concern trolling...
....Except for the absence of "concern".
It's kinda a "reverse psychology concern" trolling.
It might also just be gloating.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
He needs to find something to do
for four years (besides campaign). Not sure exactly what position he'll find that will allow him to influence both the Republican party as well as events on the ground.
Huckabee is a bit different from Palin in that he appeals to moderates and she seems (right now, anyway) like a base-only candidate. Certainly Huckabee would be economically very different from Romney, more populist -- but honestly I think that's part of why he draws support from the middle.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
more like 2 years
Since the campaign will start in 2010... Also if he campaigns for GOP Congressional candidates in 2010, it might help keep him visible. As it is, he is already shmoozing with the Conservative activists.
Huckabee might be personally charming and economic populist as part of his appeal, but economic populism has no place in future GOP and would only work to undermine the return to fiscal sanity. Which is why GOP would be suicidal to pick him even as a potential winning ticket.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
But the choice was Palin, and not Romney
I tend to agree with you on this, that the economic conservatives really need to split from the social conservatives. I even see a wide swath of the center and some of the libertarian-left that would fit in with this new party. There is a lot of distaste for the governmentally intrusive nature of social conservatism, regardless of how one feels personally about the issues in questions (e.g. marriage, abortion, intelligent design, etc.). For example, I may personally dislike the idea of abortion, but I dislike more the idea of a government having the police power to grant or deny something so intrinsically personal as that. Libery, true liberty, is often a two-edged sword. Sometimes one has to accept the "risks" that come from allowing (and safeguarding) individual freedom.
But I'm having a hard time seeing that this new party will be the GOP. The choice of Palin, and Huckabee's popularity, says a lot about the direction the party heads wish to go. The choice of RNC chair will be meaningful as well (have they chosen yet, btw?).
I'm hopeful that the economic conservatives have the will to break away from the GOP if the GOP continues down the road of being a big-government, populist, and socially intrusive party. But I'm not putting any money on it ;-)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
the split might be closer to 50-50
from the observable support of McCain, Romney, and Huckabee through the primaries... And that's in the GOP base. Also imo there are many conservatives who would only pay lip service to the Social side and would dump it if they got a chance. Huckabee got almost all of the pure Social Conservatives, which was about 25% of GOP. Another 15% went to McCain who was seen as more viable, with the remaining 10% going to Romney.
Economic conservatism is what makes most republicans tick, but the bosses are scared of losing the alliance and the rubes pretend to be socially conservative so well that they forget it themselves that they don't care.
I used to care much more about social conservatism because I was really into GOP politics. There are many people like that. If there was ever a good time to break up, it is now.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
A changing of the tone
would help. As it relates to their past rhetoric, Republicans seems enormously intolerant, and unwilling to broaden their tent.
How would Romney answer the question on Prop 8 and depriving folks of their rights?
Gov Ahnold is an example of what a new Republican might look like.
It is the economy, stupid.
I doubt it
About Gov Ahnold... He is actually economically a moderate Democrat and like I pointed out, that is not a winning direction for the GOP to go. They might as well become democrats.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The question then becomes....
what is a winning direction for the GOP to go, in your opinion. I don't think swinging further right will help them win elections. They need to moderate somewhere don't they.
It is the economy, stupid.
it's not a matter of moderation
but of focus. Pragmatic economic conservatism is a viable platform if the party actually adhered to it. Dropping all focus from social conservatism would help the party pick up the centrist voters.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well then someone
is going to have to convince the social conservatives to be more tolerant and moderate their positions... which isn't going to be particularly easy. Mike Huckabee could be a voice there.
I don't see any shining star to hold up the party's new practical economic conservative message. Maybe Bob Corker? He seems charming, bright, practical and very business minded.
I also don't see any way that the GOP can win without 'the church' people who adore Sarah Palin.
It is the economy, stupid.
That's kinda my point
Prop 8 and a lot of what gets labelled as "intolerance" coming from the right has been based in the socially conservative part of the GOP.
The "intolerance" generally shown from the economic conservatives has been for financial issues (taxation and the use of those taxes). Economic conservatives tend to reject the philosophies of the nanny state beyond what is required for the truly incapable, versus the liberal Democrats who feel that governmental powers can and should be used for social safety nets and similar programs.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Except that
there is a tie between the two, in that, the evil Feds forced the South to integrate with their nasty Federal Mandates. Thus the rise of States rights populism, and this crazy quilt that has been woven where some states have RTD and some don't, just as one example.
The common theme seems to be equal rights for black people has caused the collapse of the nation. When the Government insists on spending your tax dollars on black people it is the ruination of the country. An e-mail that blames it all on the democrats. This is not useful in encouraging Republicans have a bigger tent.
It is the economy, stupid.
Maybe
I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but more to the point, I doubt that most current voters even think about that when voting or choosing a party these days. Many people on this blog, for instance, weren't even a twinkle when integration began. It may have been the seed that began the resurgence of states-rights movements (I cannot say one way or the other on that), and might have been the original link between the social and fiscal conservatives, but I don't see it being that relevant for today's thought that we should devolve more power back to the states. Who's our states-rights guy, Stinerman? I doubt he supports it solely because of integration or equal rights for black people.
I would venture to guess that the social/fiscal coalition within the GOP endures because its been a successful strategy to get Republicans elected. Up until now.
And partisan emails are really just spam. Or, maybe a better analogy is they are the Republican version of the Kos-style echo chamber ;-)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
It is hyperbolic
true. But it has worked. The theme has morphed somewhat, to the libertarian anti-government establishment meme to resist the horrors of the nanny state democrats. Everyone hates government until they need it to work.
I think a truer statement would be that a small faction of the GOP has been taken over by a very elite few, that have succeeded in figuring out how to let the markets work the best for a very elite few (by pushing this hypberbolic hate the federal government rhetoric).
It is troubling to me, that these uber partisan free market right wing elites, which I view as a Republican breed, created this investment model that is just plain lousy. Yes, Alan Greenspan is a Republican.
It is the economy, stupid.
Better not make that
Better not make that transition to the "Romney party" a multi-year project, or by the time you've arrived, Romney may be totally different (if he thought more flips would help him get elected).
Here's a whacky idea: How
Here's a whacky idea: How about the Republican Party return to the way it was when it was truly fiscally conservative -- seeking low taxation, but within the constraint of however low they could get spending so that we no longer face (and are no longer exacerbating) our long-term, unsustainable fiscal imbalance. The Republican Party has thrown out the concept of fiscal responsibility and replaced it with a sham so-called "fiscal conservatism" that consists of seeking tax cuts under any and all circumstances while paying lip service to spending restraint/reductions and deficit reduction.
Good Diary Ender...
...I disagree about Romney being a flip flopper, at least in that he has not done so any more than any politician who has had a political career that spanned any amount of time, since times change and so do people, and considering the state he was governing... LOL!.
I see Romney however more as an evolutionary candidate. He has grown into the role he now embodies, and I agree, he was the right guy for 2008, but he will be even more so in 2012!
And its not just the economy where we will miss a guy like Romney, the Russians are getting very aggressive in Cuba and Venezuela, the bad guys in the world got their wish, and are as we speak looking to take us down a notch or two, if not reverse the world order, so, we'll see.
As far as social conservatism, it is alive and well, and the pendulum will swing back in it's direction. It is based on eternal concepts of right and wrong, so when the dust settles, and the fads change, good will still be good, and bad will still be bad.
Capitalism is going to make a major comeback as once the realities of this upcoming administration hits home, and people start to figure out what went down, all will realize how good we've had it under even a somewhat restrictive market.
BO's nuts being tested was probably the one and only thing Biden got right!
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Inherent contradiction?
I agree with what you wrote in a philosophical sense, but I have a hard time putting the government in the role of enforcer, and I think that's what turns many otherwise "conservative" voters away from the party. Giving the state undue police power over personal issues to me also seems rather in direct opposition, even contradiction, to the desire to keep the state out of issues pertaining to the market and business.
But maybe we're defining social conservatism differently? I tend to define it as those things dealing with how individuals interact in social settings (the home, the family, the community). Would your definition be broader? Or do you not see the contradiction?
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Oh I agree, it's not a government thing...
...just as we should not be governed by a liberal federal agenda either.
We should be governed by the constitution.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Country Club Republicans"
I thought this opinion about the the future of the GOP
was worth sharing here. Although he doesn't explicitly state to jettison the social conservatives, he does tend to agree that the GOP needs to focus more closely on fewer key principles. Here's a snippet:
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
at lest he isn't atheist
Well, at lesat he isn't atheist.
Though it seems like the Mormon church is getting some really bad PR due to its intervention in the Prop 8 campaign....but I don't know if that reaction will extend to moderates who would otherwise vote for a Republican.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
they're both capitalist
Pretty much everything the Democrats have done since (and including) FDR has been to stabilize the capitalist system. They aren't any less "capitalist" than the Republicans, they just have a different idea of how the elite should manage the system, and which portion of the elite should have the most control.
Perhaps the better distinction would be to call the Democrats the "welfare" party, whereas the Republicans are the pure "profiteer" party.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
BS!
You are high on your on supply brother.
The Democrats have undermined Capitalism at every junction.
Capitalism does not require "Stabilization", or regulation, it requires quite the opposite!
And its not elite vs anything else Adam, it is natural selection, political Darwinism if you will, the ones that find the will to try, in a free market by and large have at least modicum of success, or a great deal of success, it is the ones who fail to try, who refuse to even make the effort to be self supporting through their own contributions who are at the other end of the equation here.
Get real.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Hey Red_Wing
This is totally off-topic, but this is where you are posting...
You live in Santa Barbara, don't you? Are those fires posing a threat at all? Hoping all is well. I guess if you are posting you are probably OK!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hi SL...
It's ok now, but we were in the thick of it on Friday night, it was crazy, about 6pm we heard about it, and just a few hours later it was a raging inferno! Several friends lost their homes, we have one friends kids staying with us for a few days, it was really wild, but we are ok...thanks for asking. ;-)
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Capitalism does not require
In that case, the Republicans have undermined it also, since day one when they championed protectionist tariffs (McKinley being a big proponent)...and we all know what damage Bush and his friends have done to the free market.
Government officials operate in a free market? Huh?
It's hard for me to say much here since I don't know what mythology you are appealing to regarding the origins of our political system. Last time that I checked, most of our political system was established by a bunch of rich white men who were quite explicitly using it to rule over the poor, blacks, and women.
Even though those explicit exclusions are gone, my history books didn't discuss any communist uprising that severed the connection between wealth and political power. It is convenient how our institutions give power to those individuals with the ability to mobilize and coordinate the actions (vote) of millions of other people...because wealth couldn't possibly tilt the playing field in such a competition.
P.S.
Are you suggesting that I'm an entrepreneur?
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
If by "stabilize" you mean ...
"repudiate, discredit, interfere with, and dismantle wherever possible", then yes, I agree that the Democrats have been working diligently to "stabilize" the capitalist system wherever they find
an opportunitythe need.Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
reduce labor strife, prevent a rebellion...you know "stabilize"
First, I only mean that their intention was to stabilize the capitalist system, not that the actually achieved it (that is a much bigger issue than I want to discuss here).
Remember that FDR came from old money. Many other Democratic leaders have been from wealthy families (e.g. Kennedys, Gores). For those that weren't born rich, most of them have become rich. It's bizzare to suggest that they all want to undermine the basis for their own status and comfort. They want their money to work for them -- they want to have investment opportunities and the power that comes with ownership-- the essence of capitalism.
If you want a few examples of how they stabilized and validated the capitalist system, consider:
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas