So I've been hearing this a lot from conservatives as of late, that if Obamacare continues to bomb, it could be the death knell of Progressivism for a generation. Some have even suggested that it could destroy the Democratic party for a generation. Here is my take:
1) Obamacare, if it really bombs, could really deal a severe blow to the whole Progressive cause, one which calls for a large, activist role for the central government in the economy and in people's lives, for possibly at least a decade or more, maybe two to three decades even. I am more cautious because nowadays with the Internet, politics is a bit different than how it used to be.
2) In terms of destroying the Democratic party, I think this is about as realistic as the constant claims of the death of the GOP. However, it could possibly destroy the more far-leftist behavior that the current Democratic party has been in favor of under President Obama.
IMO, what would really be ironic is if the GOP is continually unable to win the presidency due to its social conservatism (same-sex marriage and the like), but yet the Democratic party in winning the presidency is no longer able to pursue the solidly leftist agenda that it has been pursuing via President Obama.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
The Future of the GOP
I am wondering if the GOP will be able to get another candidate elected as President anymore. Some argue that the mainstream GOP's social conservatism (completely against abortion, anti-same sex marriage, etc...) is going to prevent this and is a good deal why Romney lost the 2012 election. If this is the case though, I fear for the GOP because it seems that either in the GOP, there are the ultra-right-wing Tea Party conservatives who scare away independent voters, or the more "moderate" conservatives who are essentially too moderate and come across more as a lighthearted version of a Democrat as opposed to a conservative who just happens to be moderate.
By this, I mean many a "moderate" conservative has proven unable to defend basic conservative principles. They don't know how to fight against criticism of conservatism from the Left. A conservative who happens to be moderate is one that will come across as clearly conservative, but just more moderate on issues. At least that is how I see it anyway. A Bob Dole, a John McCain, a Mitt Romney, etc...are the moderate kind who are/were more like lighthearted Democrats. A Ted Cruz, a Rand Paul, a Sarah Palin, etc...these are your far-right Tea Party conservatives. Neither type seems able to win a presidential election for being either too right or too moderate.
Four problems I see with the GOP are:
1) Appearance of ramming religion down people's throats: Not all GOPers seek to do this, but there are some that do and this hurts the party
2) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against same-sex marriage strikes many as being thinly-veiled anti-gay bigotry on the party of the GOP: Again, this is not the case with all GOPers, but with many it seems to be the case, and this hurts the party
3) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against illegal immigration strikes many people as being thinly-veiled racism: again, most GOPers are not racist, but the hardline rhetoric strikes many independents as the GOP being racist. It also scares the daylights out of the Hispanic and Latino community
4) The extremist pro-life position of the GOP turns off many women and independents
If these problems are in fact keeping away enough independents and women from voting for the GOP in the presidential elections, then either the GOP will have to change itself on some of these issues or it won't be able to win another presidential election. Now I don't think this is set in stone, however, for a few reasons. During the 2012 election, some said that the GOP can no longer count on the white vote to be able to carry it through to a presidential win. Basically, that the white vote is no longer lare enough to outdo the minority-women-independent-leftwing-youth block that tends to go more for the Democratic party.
Maybe this is the case, but the thing is, Romney lost by about three million votes. Consequently, about three million Republicans stayed home during the election as they were not at all enthused about Romney. If these GOPers had come out and voted, then either Romney would have won or he would have lost by a much narrower margin. In addition to this, Romney had also been made irrelevant in the media right prior to the election by Hurricane Sandy, meanwhile Obama got a lot of great press from the crises and also, inadvertently, help from Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, a hardcore critic of Democrats, yet who gave great praise to Obama. This would be like Nancy Pelosi coming out in huge praise for George W. Bush. This hurt Romney as quite a few independent voters said that it was Obama's work regarding Sandy that made them decide to vote for him.
And then to top that off, 80% of the Hispanic/Latino vote went for Obama, instead of the more normal 60/40 split the Hispanic vote usually takes. If the GOP is next time able to win back more of the Hispanic vote, doesn't have a natural disaster sideline its convention or campaign (it will be harder next time for a natural disaster to sideline the campaign itself as the Democratic candidate will not be in office and thus not able to get press for directing aid as the President can), and can enthuse those three million Republicans who stayed home in 2012 while at the same time not scaring away three million independent voters as a result, then it could probably win in 2016.
Another aspect to this debate is that it would mean that the claim that the white vote is not adequate to outnumber the minorities, women, youth vote, etc...is incorrect (I am assuming the vast majority of those three million Republicans were white). I am not saying that this is a good thing, if the GOP is a predominately white party, but it would mean it can still win the presidency without needing to attract other groups. If the GOP can ease up its rhetoric and stance on abortion, and come across more reasonably regarding illegal immigration, and become more accepting of LGBT people, it naturally will start to attract these groups in larger numbers.
To win more of the Hispanic vote, I think the GOP needs to emphasize two things to Hispanics:
1) That the GOP, while against illegal immigration, understands that the government cannot just essentially slam a door shut on the border as that would cut in half families; that the GOP is very much a party of family values, and fully understands the concerns about family that the Hispanics have and is not going to do anything that just cuts families in half (how exactly to go about doing this with an immigration policy that appeals to conservatives I am not sure, but the GOP needs to have softer rhetoric with regards to the issue if it expects to win more Hispanics---also, the GOP really is supposed to be a party that understands family and family values and the importance of the family unit as a building block for society, and as such, should really have concern about this aspect of the Hispanic population that have combinations of illegals with legal immigrants).
2) Some Hispanics after the 2012 election said that they do not necessarily agree with the GOP's argument about limited government, that in their culture, people help one another and that is something that they strongly believe in. This is based on a misconception about conservatism however, i.e., that it is for a society in which people are on their own versus the Democratic party's view of a society in which everyone is in it together, which to them equals government programs. This type of wording was for example used during the Democratic National Convention. But it is an incorrect understanding of conservatism. Conservatism very much believes in people helping one another, but sees a distinction between society and government. Democrats and the political Left, on the other hand, equate the two as being one and the same.
Society consists of things such as the family, community, church, charity, etc...all of which are people helping one another, but none of which involve the government. Seeing a distinction between society and government is also not arguing against the existence of a form of welfare state for safety net purposes, it is just arguing that having a "we're in it together society" need not mean a bunch of government programs or a large social welfare state.
In explaining this, the GOP needs to explain to the Hispanic population that the reason it is for more limited government is because of how historically, many government programs intended to help people have only done the opposite and made the problems worse, how such programs can tend to explode in cost and be unsustainable financially, and so forth. That the GOP instead is for a limited size of welfare state for safety net purposes and believes fully in a society in which people help one another.
By this, I mean many a "moderate" conservative has proven unable to defend basic conservative principles. They don't know how to fight against criticism of conservatism from the Left. A conservative who happens to be moderate is one that will come across as clearly conservative, but just more moderate on issues. At least that is how I see it anyway. A Bob Dole, a John McCain, a Mitt Romney, etc...are the moderate kind who are/were more like lighthearted Democrats. A Ted Cruz, a Rand Paul, a Sarah Palin, etc...these are your far-right Tea Party conservatives. Neither type seems able to win a presidential election for being either too right or too moderate.
Four problems I see with the GOP are:
1) Appearance of ramming religion down people's throats: Not all GOPers seek to do this, but there are some that do and this hurts the party
2) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against same-sex marriage strikes many as being thinly-veiled anti-gay bigotry on the party of the GOP: Again, this is not the case with all GOPers, but with many it seems to be the case, and this hurts the party
3) The harsh, hardline rhetoric against illegal immigration strikes many people as being thinly-veiled racism: again, most GOPers are not racist, but the hardline rhetoric strikes many independents as the GOP being racist. It also scares the daylights out of the Hispanic and Latino community
4) The extremist pro-life position of the GOP turns off many women and independents
If these problems are in fact keeping away enough independents and women from voting for the GOP in the presidential elections, then either the GOP will have to change itself on some of these issues or it won't be able to win another presidential election. Now I don't think this is set in stone, however, for a few reasons. During the 2012 election, some said that the GOP can no longer count on the white vote to be able to carry it through to a presidential win. Basically, that the white vote is no longer lare enough to outdo the minority-women-independent-leftwing-youth block that tends to go more for the Democratic party.
Maybe this is the case, but the thing is, Romney lost by about three million votes. Consequently, about three million Republicans stayed home during the election as they were not at all enthused about Romney. If these GOPers had come out and voted, then either Romney would have won or he would have lost by a much narrower margin. In addition to this, Romney had also been made irrelevant in the media right prior to the election by Hurricane Sandy, meanwhile Obama got a lot of great press from the crises and also, inadvertently, help from Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, a hardcore critic of Democrats, yet who gave great praise to Obama. This would be like Nancy Pelosi coming out in huge praise for George W. Bush. This hurt Romney as quite a few independent voters said that it was Obama's work regarding Sandy that made them decide to vote for him.
And then to top that off, 80% of the Hispanic/Latino vote went for Obama, instead of the more normal 60/40 split the Hispanic vote usually takes. If the GOP is next time able to win back more of the Hispanic vote, doesn't have a natural disaster sideline its convention or campaign (it will be harder next time for a natural disaster to sideline the campaign itself as the Democratic candidate will not be in office and thus not able to get press for directing aid as the President can), and can enthuse those three million Republicans who stayed home in 2012 while at the same time not scaring away three million independent voters as a result, then it could probably win in 2016.
Another aspect to this debate is that it would mean that the claim that the white vote is not adequate to outnumber the minorities, women, youth vote, etc...is incorrect (I am assuming the vast majority of those three million Republicans were white). I am not saying that this is a good thing, if the GOP is a predominately white party, but it would mean it can still win the presidency without needing to attract other groups. If the GOP can ease up its rhetoric and stance on abortion, and come across more reasonably regarding illegal immigration, and become more accepting of LGBT people, it naturally will start to attract these groups in larger numbers.
To win more of the Hispanic vote, I think the GOP needs to emphasize two things to Hispanics:
1) That the GOP, while against illegal immigration, understands that the government cannot just essentially slam a door shut on the border as that would cut in half families; that the GOP is very much a party of family values, and fully understands the concerns about family that the Hispanics have and is not going to do anything that just cuts families in half (how exactly to go about doing this with an immigration policy that appeals to conservatives I am not sure, but the GOP needs to have softer rhetoric with regards to the issue if it expects to win more Hispanics---also, the GOP really is supposed to be a party that understands family and family values and the importance of the family unit as a building block for society, and as such, should really have concern about this aspect of the Hispanic population that have combinations of illegals with legal immigrants).
2) Some Hispanics after the 2012 election said that they do not necessarily agree with the GOP's argument about limited government, that in their culture, people help one another and that is something that they strongly believe in. This is based on a misconception about conservatism however, i.e., that it is for a society in which people are on their own versus the Democratic party's view of a society in which everyone is in it together, which to them equals government programs. This type of wording was for example used during the Democratic National Convention. But it is an incorrect understanding of conservatism. Conservatism very much believes in people helping one another, but sees a distinction between society and government. Democrats and the political Left, on the other hand, equate the two as being one and the same.
Society consists of things such as the family, community, church, charity, etc...all of which are people helping one another, but none of which involve the government. Seeing a distinction between society and government is also not arguing against the existence of a form of welfare state for safety net purposes, it is just arguing that having a "we're in it together society" need not mean a bunch of government programs or a large social welfare state.
In explaining this, the GOP needs to explain to the Hispanic population that the reason it is for more limited government is because of how historically, many government programs intended to help people have only done the opposite and made the problems worse, how such programs can tend to explode in cost and be unsustainable financially, and so forth. That the GOP instead is for a limited size of welfare state for safety net purposes and believes fully in a society in which people help one another.
China Bubble
So to anyone who has followed my blog for awhile will be aware, I have in the past often harped about the bubble in China and if/when it will burst and what the effect will be. I am willing to concede that I could be totally wrong on that and that the bubble was not the kind that will burst, however, after doing some Googling on the matter, it seems like the bubble is alive and growing in China right now. If this is the case, will the bubble have a breaking point at some point? Will it result in a crash that is unprecedented? And how would something like that affect the global economy, and the American economy in turn?
Will next year really be the calamity many are predicting?
So we are in interesting times. It seems that Obamacare could really be an epic policy disaster and it has the Democratic party scared to death. Myself, while it does seem this way, I don't think anyone will know for sure until if/when the website gets working and then next year, when people with employment-based health insurance start getting kicked off of their policies and forced to buy new policies.
I was rather shocked that President Obama said that they did not realize how difficult purchasing health insurance online was. This is the kind of thing that conservatives and libertarians have been yelling about since the legislation was proposed, i.e., that no one can predict exactly how such a massive and complex piece of legislation such as this will perform.
I am hoping that this helps the GOP in the 2014 elections, but time will tell. And in the 2016 Presidential elections.
I was rather shocked that President Obama said that they did not realize how difficult purchasing health insurance online was. This is the kind of thing that conservatives and libertarians have been yelling about since the legislation was proposed, i.e., that no one can predict exactly how such a massive and complex piece of legislation such as this will perform.
I am hoping that this helps the GOP in the 2014 elections, but time will tell. And in the 2016 Presidential elections.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)