What's next for the Republican Party?

[ZOmegaZ]

Okay, this is oversimplified, so correct my failings...

The Republican party as I see it has three major wings.

1) Religious conservatives who want to enforce their beliefs on others.
2) Business interests.
3) Tea party/Drumph/next demagogue anti-compromise authoritarians.

This primary has made it clear that those three groups will no longer work together. The Drumph supporters can't be trusted to compromise for the good of the party, and they can't trust the rest of the party to help them burn the building down. Cruz's religious wing isn't particularly more cooperative. Rubio is trying to walk a line among all three, like a good candidate typically does. But this year the anti-compromise sentiment is so strong he's failing.

I think it's clear that the Republican party as we have known it is over. They've spent thirty years purposefully growing a base that thinks compromise is evil, when it's a fundamental requirement of civilization. More relevantly, compromise is required to form a major party in a two-party system. The party elite has told their base that the system is evil. Now that base has realized that the party elite are part of that system, and it's consuming them.

No two wings of this party can survive without the third. So what's next? The possibilities I see:

1) Republicans somehow hold it together. With an anti-compromise wing this is only possible if the anti-compromise wing gets everything they want. I don't think enough evangelical Christians are willing to do that particular deal with the devil; a lot of us would end up just not voting. The business interest wing can buy Democrats almost as well as they can Republicans these days.

2) Republicans disintegrate into two or more parties. Since our voting system fundamentally breaks if there are more than two candidates, Democrats win everything everywhere.

3) Republicans and Democrats both disintegrate. I don't see enough substantial fracture lines for this to happen in the short term, but in the medium term it's imaginable that we'd get a fracture within the Democrats. Some of the more right-wing elements leave and join the moderated Republican business/religious wing to form a viable second party, leaving the more progressive wing behind. American politics shifts leftward, to be more centrist. The anti-compromise wing is still out there, left in the cold, waiting for another demagogue to run as a third-party candidate.

4) Election reform renders the two-party paradigm obsolete. Use approval voting and proportional representation for all elections, and suddenly political parties become much less relevant. Can happen on a state-by-state basis.

Obviously I'm hoping for #4.

Thoughts?

[Purple]

Thoughts?

In the near and medium term I'd say you listed them in order of likelihood.

[Raw Shark]

There is a part of me that hopes for #4 as the most progressive option, but also a part that would smack its lips at #2.

[Elheru Aran]

I would expect less a disintegration of the Republican Party and more a steady stream of higher profile, more successful quasi-independent but nominally D or R candidates. Trump and Sanders are pretty notable as being such in this race. Eventually, they're going to not bother declaring themselves D or R, and will count on the high visibility of their campaign to get them elected rather than party loyalty.

It's going to take a damn long time before the two-party system goes away, though. It's going to take a lot of high profile, *successful* independent runs to really pull it off.

[Simon_Jester]

I would bet on #2 for at least one election cycle, followed by eventual shift towards #3. #4 is a wildcard possibility.

Basically, #2 is a likely immediate outcome, because major shifts in party alignment and party platforms don't happen overnight, or even over a summer.

But when you've got physics training you learn to think in terms of stable equilibriums- in the long term, systems tend to occupy a stable equilibrium, even if the only equilibrium available is "lying in pieces on the ground." #2 is not a stable equilibrium state, because there are too many Americans who don't want to vote Democrat, and who view the Republican "brand name" as a good or at least honorable thing.

By contrast, #3 is a stable equilibrium. Taking the long view, this would amount to the Republicans spitting out the most extreme members of their own radicalized right wing, abandoning the current "no enemies to the right" stance that causes them such turmoil, a parallel of the "no enemies to the left" stance adopted by Kerensky which led to the disastrous collapse of the Russian Republic in 1917.

They would then be free to make a play for the bloc of voters currently identified as "center" or "center-left," including many socially conservative minorities such as blacks and Latinos who are less than perfectly comfortable with the Democratic social agenda, but who are partially alienated by the current Republican Party's racism and blatantly pro-rich stance.

However, the transition from the status quo to #3 cannot possibly happen overnight, so condition #2 is likely to hold through at least one or two election cycles while the transition is made.

[Prannon]

Interesting read on the last time that we had a political party die in this country.

In the case of the whigs, it took two election cycles for that party to truly fall apart, and something that I noticed is that it took the party's standard bearers and leaders dying off from old age, a ticket splitting issue, and high ranking members of the party running off to form their own to really seal the coffin.

Stuff to keep in mind.

[Zaune]

There is a part of me that hopes for #4 as the most progressive option, but also a part that would smack its lips at #2.

You'd regret it in the long run, though. You think a two-party system's bad? Imagine a one and a quarter party system.

[Elheru Aran]

Interesting read on the last time that we had a political party die in this country.

In the case of the whigs, it took two election cycles for that party to truly fall apart, and something that I noticed is that it took the party's standard bearers and leaders dying off from old age, a ticket splitting issue, and high ranking members of the party running off to form their own to really seal the coffin.

Stuff to keep in mind.

(emphasis added to quote)

This is quite possibly going to be the case with the Republicans. There are enough upper-end baby boomers in their 60s and 70s running that party that many of them are going to be retiring within the next decade or so. There's enough 40-60 year old Republicans to keep the party going for another generation or so, but the important thing to remember is that among that group there's enough diversity now with the evangelicals, the Tea Partiers and the libertarians in the mix that it's quite possible those elements might start splitting off to some degree once the old guard is out.

I can't say it's not the same with the Democrats, but I think there's enough commonality (more or less) within that party to tolerate the various divisions that have appeared (green, socialist, etc). I can see the Democratic Party lasting longer than the Republicans, potentially even staying reasonably strong.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, I'm hoping the whole fascistic clusterfuck collapses under its own xenophobic weight, and the Democrats dominate American politics for a generation, while conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans form a new Centre Right party, a proper Progressive Democratic Party emerges, and the Tea Party diminishes as the older generations die off and more Latinos immigrate into the US until it is relegated to a neo-Nazi-type fringe.

The Republican Party deserves nothing less at this point.

[Joun_Lord]

I'm hoping its 3 or 4.

1 is bad considering the fact the Republican party needs to change and limping along trying to do what its been doing will make it irrelevant but still with enough power to be detrimental. And detrimental they will be. They would continue their current trend of just being obstructionists, obstructing even stuff they believe in.

2 I personally think might be bad too. I agree with the Democrat party on alot of social issues but not so much on their stances towards gun control, rural affairs, and immigration at times. I also certainly don't agree with the current brand of crazy of the far left idiot being bred on college campuses that seem allergic to thought, are coddled morons, and are sometimes violently opposed to anyone who doesn't agree with their brand of stupid. They will be the future leaders of the Democrat party. So I like the Republican party existing to serve as a counterweight to the Democrat's powers so they can go full Eurocommie gun control on our guns (well not mine considering I don't even own guns unless you count a flare gun from a country that don't exist anymore) or try to create mandatory safe spaces and legal recognition for "other-kin".

It could okay though but will get hairy for the short term but could create something wonderful like the original Republican party after the fall of the Whigs. Just for probably a decade or more the Dems will be in complete control until a new party gains power.

And before anyone jumps down my throat for being an evul reich wing Republican't, no I'm not a Republican or a Democrat either. If anything I'm like a centrist, maybe like a libertarian without the love of corporations and hate of poor people.

3 I don't see happening unless the collapse of the Republican party create infighting in the Dems ranks causing them to collapse too. Could be interesting, might be a clusterfuck for awhile. Certainly would be stressful for alot of people.

4 Would be freaking great but probably the least likely to happen. Americans for whatever reason seem just really opposed to anything but the two party system. Having a Eurocommie multi-party system where its not winner takes all and the various parties have to form alliances and share power and all that crap sounds wonderful. Might get shit done without letting in too much of the crazy on either side....hopefully.

However I just don't see it happening anytime in the near future for the US. Too much big business, too many political power blocks, too many voters seem far too invested in the two party system and unwilling to give any 3rd parties a chance.

Still a man can dream but like the return of Firefly, Terminator TSCC, and VHS tapes its just that, a dream.

[Vendetta]

I think it will depend very much on what happens in the general election.

In opposition they can carry on as they are, united in their desire to stop anything resembling government from occurring. So if whoever ends up the nominee loses then business as usual resumes, they continue to gerrymander the House to keep control of it, and continue to contribute nothing other than obstructionism. As long as all they have to do is say No to whatever the Democrats want, they don't have to confront their problems.

It's if their chosen man actually wins they're in trouble.

Trump is probably the lesser evil for the party establishment, because at least they all hate him equally (despite his demagoguery he's actually not very conservative along lines that annoy basically everyone on some point or other).

Cruz would be more of a disaster, because he's deeply in the pocket of one of the party's interest groups with almost no crossover appeal. Cruz would be the real party splitter, determinedly pandering to his religious right core and making the business wing of the party tag along for a ride they might not want.

[LadyTevar]

I do not see #3 happening anytime soon. Maybe somewhere down the road, where "Gen X" is in their 70s, but not for a generation or two.
#4 is another I don't see happening, because it's now "Tradition" to have Two Parties. And you all know that Tradition has more weight than Law in many minds. Breaking the Tradition is going to take an upset the size of a Civil War, imho.

However, I see #2 already starting. We see it with how Trump has thrown traditional party planks to the winds. When the party's best hope of regaining control is Cruz, a right-wing evangelical Bibble-thumper with barely half the Charisma, the GOP leadership is now trying to throw on the brakes, and failing. They're reaping what they've been sowing the past 20yrs, and it's biting them in the ass.

I agree with Prannon and Elheru, two elections is about all the current GOP party can stand, assuming the Democrats can "Get out the Vote" with the younger generation. That is going to be the real movement, what the current 18-25yr olds do the next two elections. Many of them seem to have given up on all political parties, to the point of "I can't Fix It, Why Bother" mentality.

[Raw Shark]

@Joun_Lord: Nobody's trying to Take Your Gunz. Obama has spent exactly zero political capital on it. That's a long-running right-wing scare tactic that they use to manipulate idiots. I'm probably the farthest guy to the left in this thread, and I am the proud owner of a rifle that I have used very productively to kill a very large number of small animals that were trying to eat my food, and would cheerfully use it to kill a human being who was trying to do the same to me, and I think it's great that I can do so.

[Lord Revan]

IIRC Finland has more firearms per capita (though mostly hunting rifles rather then handguns) the USA and we're in the left even by EU standards (though still lightyears from actual socialism).

[the atom]

#3 is the most absolute likely outcome. The Democrats are even more of a big tent coalition than the Republicans are. For all the talk of this election revealing the major, widening fault-lines of the Republican party, this election has shown that a similar phenomenon exists within the Democratic party. When #2 happens, and it will, likely a lot sooner than any of us imagined, the Democrats will likely follow shortly thereafter.

This doesn't mean the end of the two party system of course; American political history shows that multi-party equilibriums don't tend to last long, and eventually the chaotic fragments of the Democrats and the GOP will coalesce into two new parties that are aligned on different axes.

[Zaune]

IIRC Finland has more firearms per capita (though mostly hunting rifles rather then handguns) the USA and we're in the left even by EU standards (though still lightyears from actual socialism).

You folks also have to run a non-negligible risk of getting mugged by a bear if you go camping or hiking. That tends to make gun politics much more straightforward.

[Joun_Lord]

@Joun_Lord: Nobody's trying to Take Your Gunz. Obama has spent exactly zero political capital on it. That's a long-running right-wing scare tactic that they use to manipulate idiots. I'm probably the farthest guy to the left in this thread, and I am the proud owner of a rifle that I have used very productively to kill a very large number of small animals that were trying to eat my food, and would cheerfully use it to kill a human being who was trying to do the same to me, and I think it's great that I can do so.

Hey! You implying I'm a manipulated idiot! I take offense to that! Now let me go watch Fox News to go see how exactly I should be offended by that.

Seriously though, Obama isn't gun grabbin' pills(though he trying to make it harder to get gunz which I guess can be considered a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it) but certainly other Democrats are. Obama has done very little because trying any huge gun control measures would surely stall and have a negative effect on his ability to lead and his legacy (atleast thats how I see it). Now doesn't stop gun manufacturers and sellers from making Obama the number 1 fun seller of the decade but I guess thats capitalism or something.

Others Democrats including Hillary Clinton have made no secret of their want to severely curb gun ownership and even advocate for confiscations. She has multiple times said she wants to repeal the frivolous law suit protections the gurn industry has and create a gun registry. Beyond her there are others like Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Shumer, among others backed by billionaire nanny busybody Micheal Bloomberg all most certainly want to take ur gunz.

And mind you, its not even about guns for me. I'm not a gun owner, I feel no reason to own a gun despite it practically being a requirement in my state. But guns, or rather self defense made easy bake oven by guns, are one of those rights like freedom of speech, marriage, religion (including from it), justice, and private property. Any fuckery with those rights I believe is fucked. Those are things that should not be being curbed but expanded. Why I applauded gay marriage so much. Not because I have a dog in that fight (though not even a dog in the straight fight) but because it was finally expanding a fundamental right to cover everyone, the way it should be.

[Lord Revan]

IIRC Finland has more firearms per capita (though mostly hunting rifles rather then handguns) the USA and we're in the left even by EU standards (though still lightyears from actual socialism).

You folks also have to run a non-negligible risk of getting mugged by a bear if you go camping or hiking. That tends to make gun politics much more straightforward.

actually most bears are more scared of drunk finns then drunk finns are scared of bears

Seriously though bears (the animals that is) tend to avoid humans and it's legal to hunt bears (during bear hunting season obviously) here, so unless you're careless the most common place of for a finn to encounter a bear is the zoo.

[Mr Bean]

IIRC Finland has more firearms per capita (though mostly hunting rifles rather then handguns) the USA and we're in the left even by EU standards (though still lightyears from actual socialism).

You folks also have to run a non-negligible risk of getting mugged by a bear if you go camping or hiking. That tends to make gun politics much more straightforward.

actually most bears are more scared of drunk finns then drunk finns are scared of bears

Seriously though bears (the animals that is) tend to avoid humans and it's legal to hunt bears (during bear hunting season obviously) here, so unless you're careless the most common place of for a finn to encounter a bear is the zoo.

Unlike Alaska where bear enjoy taste of people. Polar bears as are like Tigers in that once they eat people they lose all fear of people and want more.

Also Moose's will fuck you up hardcore if you look at them funny during the wrong season.

[Thanas]

I really do not hope for #2, as it would create a one-party state and that is very dangerous.

[Soontir C'boath]

#3 is the most absolute likely outcome. The Democrats are even more of a big tent coalition than the Republicans are. For all the talk of this election revealing the major, widening fault-lines of the Republican party, this election has shown that a similar phenomenon exists within the Democratic party. When #2 happens, and it will, likely a lot sooner than any of us imagined, the Democrats will likely follow shortly thereafter.

This doesn't mean the end of the two party system of course; American political history shows that multi-party equilibriums don't tend to last long, and eventually the chaotic fragments of the Democrats and the GOP will coalesce into two new parties that are aligned on different axes.

There's a part of me that thinks it will be a Ralph Nader all over again where Sanders supporters may end up not showing up during the general election or if they do, write in Sanders. Then if she loses to Drumpf or whoever it may be, the DNC can use the trick again telling people that it's wrong to support candidates that they don't "unofficially" endorse to tow them back in line.

Not like that helped in 2004 though and maybe it's different this time around especially with the amount of young people voting for Sanders and hopefully they take a page out of the Tea Party book and keep voting.

I myself would love to see number four, but it is certainly unlikely in the near to mid future. There are more and more people every year who are registered as unaffiliated to a party than ever before and it had included myself until this year when I have to be a Democrat to vote for Bernie in the NY primary. Which just goes to show how disenfranchise the group can be in voicing our dissent to the two party system and the power we truly wield in bringing the candidates we want in the general election which is utterly ludicrous when NYC as an example is where there are more unaffiliated voters than Republicans.

[the atom]

#3 is the most absolute likely outcome. The Democrats are even more of a big tent coalition than the Republicans are. For all the talk of this election revealing the major, widening fault-lines of the Republican party, this election has shown that a similar phenomenon exists within the Democratic party. When #2 happens, and it will, likely a lot sooner than any of us imagined, the Democrats will likely follow shortly thereafter.

This doesn't mean the end of the two party system of course; American political history shows that multi-party equilibriums don't tend to last long, and eventually the chaotic fragments of the Democrats and the GOP will coalesce into two new parties that are aligned on different axes.

There's a part of me that thinks it will be a Ralph Nader all over again where Sanders supporters may end up not showing up during the general election or if they do, write in Sanders. Then if she loses to Drumpf or whoever it may be, the DNC can use the trick again telling people that it's wrong to support candidates that they don't "unofficially" endorse to tow them back in line.

Not like that helped in 2004 though and maybe it's different this time around especially with the amount of young people voting for Sanders and hopefully they take a page out of the Tea Party book and keep voting.

I myself would love to see number four, but it is certainly unlikely in the near to mid future. There are more and more people every year who are registered as unaffiliated to a party than ever before and it had included myself until this year when I have to be a Democrat to vote for Bernie in the NY primary. Which just goes to show how disenfranchise the group can be in voicing our dissent to the two party system and the power we truly wield in bringing the candidates we want in the general election which is utterly ludicrous when NYC as an example is where there are more unaffiliated voters than Republicans.

Trust me, a multi-party system isn't the holy grail it's cracked up to be. There's just as much screaming and wailing about injustice and unfairness, only it's about how a government gets to win the election even though it only got 30% of the vote.

I really do not hope for #2, as it would create a one-party state and that is very dangerous.

That's not what would happen lol. You seriously think after watching this election that the constituent elements of the Democratic party would stay together for a second longer than they have to?