Charlie Cook: GOP Loaded Up In Car - Racing Toward Generational Cliff - With Eyes On Rearview Mirror

[kpete]

The GOP Needs to Change
“The momentous events of the last week can be interpreted in numerous ways. But one thing has become increasingly clear: The Republican Party needs to change.”

“Simply put, Republicans are loaded up in a car, racing toward a generational cliff with their eyes focused on the rearview mirror, with many (but notably not all) oblivious to the societal changes taking place all around them and the growing wedge building between their comfort zone and presidential swing voters… Republicans need to do some soul-searching about their future and their relationships with voters of generations to come. Vibrant parties change with the times, adapt themselves to changing conditions and circumstances. Maybe this past week will help the GOP do this.”



LOL:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/a-momentous-week-and-a-gop-that-needs-to-change-20150629

[ladjf]

1. They haven't changed since they were formed in the 1850's. Why would they change now? nt

[geek tragedy]

3. They have changed dramatically since the 1850's--for the worse.

They used to be the party of Lincoln and civil rights.

Now they're the party of Jefferson Davis and bigotry.

[ladjf]

8. I believe that if you will review the policies of the

"Radical Republicans" in the early 1860's on forward you will see the similarities with the current Republicans.

And may I add, don't let the cliche phrase "Party of Lincoln" mislead you. My sense of the Republican history during the pre-Civil War and after the war was that they recognized the slave issue was their "dream issue" to divide the Country and take control of the Government. It worked. They took control and held it until the Great Depression.

I don't think that civil rights meant any more to Republicans in 1850 than it does now. Anyone can see that the South had made themselves politically vulnerable by buying and using slaves. They were "ripe for the picking". Their first bad move was using slaves. Their second dumb and bad move was their refusal to discontinue slavery. The Republicans exploited the Southerner's
myopia on that issue. It's ironic that the Southern Democrats, alias "Dixie crats" left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. That was the design of the "Southern Strategy" that put the Republicans back in power.

If the 19th Century slave owners had used their brains, they would have been able to predict that there was no chance that the South could have won the Civil War. I read news articles for the Vicksburg newspaper saying that the men leaving on the train to go to war were going to "kick the Yankee's asses" within three months and would be returning home shortly. I've read several of Jefferson Davis's maniacal speeches designed to inflame the Southern people. And they did. Southerners of the era were thinking like dreamy children in fairy land. They followed their crazy leaders right off into the maelstrom of a deadly war.

[brush]

7. Oh they've changed all right

Ever heard of the dixiecrats/racists defecting to the repug party after the Democratic National Convention in 1964?

[ladjf]

11. The Dixiecrats that joined the Republicans didn't change the Party, they strengthened

their ability to control the Gvt. by using emotional wedge issues to influence the masses.

I will agree that the Republicans of the Eisenhower period were less radical than they are now or were during the Civil War.

Check out the "Radical Republicans" of the 1860's and see if you think the resemble the current Republicans.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. The ones who wanted a war to end slavery?

The ones who wanted free blacks to be given the vote and civil rights? Like Thaddeus Stevens? The only similarity between the 1860's Radicals and the modern GOP is zealotry and extremism (but zealotry and extremism directed at very different goals for very different ends).

[ladjf]

14. My opinion is that the Republicans of 1860 recognized the slave issue as being

a perfect wedge to wrest control of Government from the Democrats. I don't think they cared about the ethics of the issue.

That's just my opinion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. You don't know much about Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, then (n/t)

[ladjf]

22. The fact is, I am familiar with both Stevens and Sumner.

It appears to me that the were quintessential "Radical Republicans" made from the same cloth of present day Republicans.

They knew which side their "bread was buttered on" and played that card endlessly. After all, how could a politician go wrong in 1860 Northern U.S. by playing the "anti-slavery" card? Who around them would disagree?

The real tipoff about the innate hatred and meanness of those two characters is their cruel, sadistic and unreasonable plans to
punish the slave owners , in particular, by confiscating their property.

We should remember that the defining thing about Americans' views on slavery was geography/topography. Those that lived in parts of the Country that favored large agricultural operations used slaves to make vast amounts of money. The situation in the Northeast did not suit large scale agriculture. In 1850 the cash value of cotton exports totaled more that the value of all other American exports combined. The Southerners took the "greed route" and were punished severely for that transgression. The Northerners , who weren't in positions to profit greatly from slave owning, were opposed to slavery. It was never a matter of which group of people was more ethical than the other. They were all Americans, responding to what they thought was their best interest. (These are my opinions.)

Why are people implying that somehow, Americans living up North are more moral than those down South as though they were different species? That sounds a bit like racial prejudice. "The Southerners are inferior to Northerners". Hmm, where have I heard that kind of logic?

[ruffburr]

2. Republican have no -

Soul to search so good luck with that

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. That's their clown car that's heading over the cliff.

Funny thing was, after Mittens got his ass handed to him, the RNC did an "autopsy" on the corpse of Mitt's campaign and reached the same conclusions - and then did precisely nothing with that information because the knuckle-dragger base wanted no part of it. So, over the cliff they go. Maybe the better analogy is lemmings.

[Orsino]

6. "Oblivious to societal changes"? Nope. Making money off them.

Today's GOP candidates aren't ideologues playing any sort of long game. They're grifters, making all the bank they can before the bottom drops out.

They're not even looking into that rear-view mirror. They're cynically using the rubes who do.

[Blus4u]

9. Great observation..

When you boil it down, it all comes down to money.
Again,great observation, O.

Peace

[CanonRay]

18. 100% correct

there is no logical, reasonable reason for half the GOP candidates to be in the race except there's money in it; either contributions that they may keep, or a future gig on Fox or some RW radio show. It's all a big scam, starting with the preachers.

[Orsino]

19. Huh. And I was thinking of Trump as qualitatively different from the others.

Shoulda followed my own logic. They're all grifters, even the ones who appear more serious about running for the presidency. They're promoting their own brands.

[KittyWampus]

10. Republicans are well entrenched on the local level. Where redistricting happens.

they are on School Boards, run for dog catcher, local law circuits.

So their numbers dwindle but they still hold on to power. Their superiors have the money and know how to organize , manipulate and control.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. If they abandon social conservatism what do they have to offer?

I don't see a national uprising to dismantle the social safety net.

[C_U_L8R]

15. Why stop them?

I've been looking forward to this for a long time.

[BeyondGeography]

16. When Charlie Cook is calling you uncool

You've got a problem.

[Adrahil]

17. In about 10 years, that car goes off a cliff.

In order to survive, the GOP would need to abandon it's long alliance with social conservatives and pivot towards a more libertarian message. That's a message that can be massaged and trimmed to appeal to those who reject social conservatism, but are vulnerable to the false "freedom" message.

Rand Paul is probably the first such attempt to be the standard bearer of that new party, but the social conservatives still hold too much power.

The Tea Party movement started as an attempt to portray itself like that, but was established, funded, and staffed by far right social conservatives, and so failed miserably at creating this new brand.

The problem is that the GOP operatives were SO successful at pulling working class social conservatives into their fold, that now they are stuck with that identity. It will be very hard to unravel what they tried so hard to build, and which has served them well electorally for decades.

[Gothmog]

21. Like the base of Fox News viewers, the GOP base is getting old and dying off

[DCBob]

23. well said.