Do you think the Republicans can survive for the long haul while essentially existing as the party of the Christian Right? I long for the days when both the Democrats and Republicans truly were 'big tents.' Back when one could vote truly for the candidate and NOT the party. The Democrats and Republicans were once both heavily divided into different factions. Strong wings of Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives existed in both parties, and not merely just on social or economic issues. There were socially liberal Republicans AND economically liberal (using the American usage of liberal here, of course. Not classical liberal economics) Republicans. The reverse was also true, of course. The two-party system was not as evil and restrictive as it was back then because of this.

Then Goldwater, and later Reagan, came along. The conservative revolution hijacked the Republican party and turned it sharply towards the right. Liberals and Moderates dropped like flies. The term Rockefeller or Nixonian Republican became an insult. Now we have RINOs (Republican in Name Only). This is a very new occurrence. The Republican Party went from being the home of respectable moderate centrists like Eisenhower, Nixon (heh... corrupt as hell, but brilliant and effective) and Ford to what it is today. Even George W. Bush's father was a very different breed of Republican, and probably the last of what was once the dominant wing of the GOP. Now we have evangelical social conservatism as the official platform of the GOP. We have a party that grapples with the issue of evolution once again. This rightward tilt of the GOP has also influenced the Democratic Party. Clinton was, if anything, a perfect Nixonian Republican. But while the Republican Party has gone off the deep end and worked hard to expel any sensible voice from a position of power and leadership, the Democrats remain a bit more divided at least. They still have Southern and Red-State conservatives. Blue Dog and DLC Democrats, who remain much more influential within the party than moderates in the GOP.

America today reminds me more of a European-style parliamentary democracy than anything else. Where we once had independent politicians, we now have top-down platforms and party-line votes. There is still some variation here and there, but far less than there has been historically. And a TWO-PARTY parliamentary democracy is not that great.

Anyway... I have gone off on a tangent. Do you see the Republican Party surviving much longer if they remain in bed with the Christian Right? No doubt the Christian Right is the most organized, dedicated, and determined constituency in America today, but I see them as being more of a short-term thing. America is just currently in a state of religious conservatism that frankly quite scary. I still have hope we will come to our senses and I do believe that we will see a shift back towards sanity. Republicans might have gained a lot due to an agreement with the loony right over the past two-to-three decades, but I cannot see this arrangement remaining successful far in the future.

The politicians go where the money is at, well most of them do.

I think they'll be around for the long haul, but I do see the party system changing in the somewhat near future, because you're right, it just doesn't work.

Nice topic! Personally I think the US has the illusion of a 2 party system-while the dems and rebs put on a show of conflicting with one another. The conflict is real but they work together to prevent any viable 3rd party from becoming established, and they also seem to work together to prevent or discourage any innovative ideas. If the US wants new ideas and fresh options I think they will have to come from people not connected to these decaying political parties. Even George Washington believed that the the two party system was a terrible idea.

The Republican Party has gone too far right and the Democrats have gone too far left. Maybe it is about time for a real center of the road type to step in . Maybe someone who listens to what the people want? When do we get a say in what they do? Not Now.

There are always going to be conservatives, simply because there will always be liberals. They're relative positions to eachother. Therefore there will always be a conservative and liberal party.

Christianity is the world's largest and still fastest growing religion, and in North America and Europe it's been said for a few years now that it's almost ready for a revival. It's not going away any time soon.


That said, I do agree with your opinions on the folly of a two party system. For many, it really comes down to the better of two evils. What happens, then, when you have a centrist? Whoops, no where to go.

Up here (Canada), you have about 1 or 2 parties in the center, about 5 or 6 on the left, and maybe 4 on the right. Parlaiment consists of a ruling centrist/sometimes center-right party (Conservative), and then three leftist parties (Liberal, socialist, and seperatist). You get alot more choice.

The Right will also probably continue to be strong, because as the topic starter said, we're very well organized. Leftishness is not well defined. You can have socialism, communism, liberalism, environmentalism, etc. Conservatism is one general ideal which encompasses several ideas. Socially, it finds threads withing Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, you name it. Economically, it finds appeal with the working class (at least up here) because it promotes a strong economy.

Heh. I, of course, strongly disagree with the notion of the Democrats having gone too far left. IMO they have gone too far right. Like I said in my original post, Bill Clinton was basically a Nixonian Republican. Surely there are some lefties within the party, but the Democratic establishment is firmly on the center of American politics, and on the far end of the center-right if you were to analyze the Democrats compared to the rest of the world. It is only the opponents of the Democrats who sit firmly on the right that try to beat across this myth of the Democrats being lefties. They are so far right, anything else seems leftist to them.

Well, the thing is that traditionally American politics did not have parties that were consistently conservative and liberal. Both parties had STRONG wings that consisted of liberals and conservatives. It was not based on party. Barry Goldwater and other conservatives in the Republican Party strongly considered breaking from the GOP to form a new conservative party WITH conservative Democrats before he rose up the ranks of the GOP.

I agree Canada is much more on the center. When the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives were the two dominant parties, the PC Party frequently ran to the LEFT of the Liberals. Red Tories --- Joe Clark and their ilk. Canada was pretty similar to America in that regard as both the PC and Liberal parties had factions. And the same thing that happened in America is slowly occurring in Canada. Stephen Harper's Conservative Party is way further to the right compared to the old PC. The Liberals do remain factionalized.

I once spoke to someone from Canada who, to me, seemed to be pretty liberal. He had a signature on this forum about supporting the Conservative party and I asked him about it. He said something to the effect of "Oh you don't understand. In Canada, our Conservative party is a few notches to the left of your Democratic party.

So no, I don't think the democrats have gone too far left. I also don't think the Republicans have gone too far right really. I just think both parties are way too similar. It seems what the candidates run on and all the debate points are on foreign policy and social issues, and have very little to do with the way the government really works and how the country is run.

I don't bite the far end of the center right comment...


By rest of the world, you're including far right totalitarian regimes (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, etc). Those would weigh it. Against Europe... possibly.

But it's more center-left/middle-left.

The right and left are relative to eachother. You can't really compare it within the world because every society has their own idea of right and left.


EDIT: okay.... I don't see how someone could say that the Conservative Party was left... It's quite firmly planted in the center, a tad to the center right right now.


Economically, the CPC is kind of lefter (if that's a word, which I'm sure it's not) in many respects. Liberalization of the economy is one of it's platforms. But socially the CPC is center/center right.

Unless you have a realllllyyyy right wing liberal party :P

Well, when I said the Democrats were on the far end of the center-right globally, I obviously was referencing to Europe/Canada, etc. Sticking to liberal democracies here. The Democrats, since Clinton, tend to be pro-business, pro-growth, pro-balanced budgets. This is in sharp contrast to the past. The Democrats also do not aggressively, if at all, battle for any kind of welfare state or safety net. A large part of that is because America has a different culture than the rest of the world, like you said, and are hostile to such things. The definitions of left and right are not universal. That said... I in no way see the Democrats as being on the left or even center-left at all. In my eyes there is NO left in American politics (electable left, that is).

Ahhh... we're looking through different glasses here then.


I was thinking socially, ie the CPC is anti-abortion, anti-gay marrige, etc.

Ah. Well, the Democrats certainly tend to be socially liberal. I do not see that as 'leftist' though. I am more concerned with real issues than this social stuff that sadly sways more folks than real bread and butter concerns. There are Liberal parties in Europe that tend to be socially liberal/pro-environment, etc... but they are still lumped on the Right if they favor the liberalization of the economy and stuff. Like the Free Democrats in Germany, for one example.

Maybe some might consider that this whole idea of left and right is more political theater than reality. During campaigns the rebs try to look kinder and gentler while the dems try not to look soft.
Do these two "parties" even have an ideology anymore-beyond getting elected and looking good I mean?
I believe Nader said when your choice is the lesser of two evils you end up with evil.

The problem with a big tent party is that it becomes very difficult to get anything done.

Parties based on relevant lines form because like-minded people tend to group to increase the power of their vote. Therefore, conservatives on an issue will group with other conservatives, liberals on an issue will group with other liberals, and so on. This is natural and essential to politics.

It's true that not every issue is shared by every member of the party, but in the end all elections and all votes must come down to a value decision. I'm sure most people here will agree on some issues with every one of the candidates seeking the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties, and most of you will also disagree with some of their positions. But unless you're running yourself, it is going to come choosing the person who you agree with most consistently.

Now, as for the future of the Republican Party, I don't think there's any doubt that a centre-right party will exist in the United States, no matter what the fortunes of the Party itself. But the fact that the Republican Party has held hegemony for so long, based largely on the votes of conservative evangelicals, demonstrates that as a constituency they are not terribly weak, and do not seem to be going away very quickly. By the time they are weak enough to be a liability, they will already have been replaced with another strong conservative group. This is, again, the nature of politics.

Interesting line about problems with getting things done for a big tent party. The funny thing is 'getting things done' in a speedy fashion is pretty much the opposite of the founding fathers intentions. They envisioned a government of deadlock and obstruction where it took YEARS and YEARS of debate and thought to pass anything of importance. That was something they specifically desired. Though parliamentary tricks, the filibuster, and etc. have been weakened TREMENDOUSLY over the last century or so. Maybe it is the nature of the 21st century that things should move smoothly, but it certainly was not the original intention.

With that said... I of course in no way meant that the centre-right or conservatives would vanish. Just the Republican Party itself. Of course a new party on the right would rise up. :P My intention of this thread is whether or not that party will continue to be the Republican Party or will a new conservative force rise up?

A system oriented toward gridlock will fail, in the end. If the Congress is expected to govern the country--and in our century it is--it must be able to govern within the time scale of the country, which is decidedly less than several years.

As for the question of whether the Republican Party will be replaced, I don't think it's a terribly meaningful question. If the institution of "The Republican Party" is replaced, its replacement will contain roughly the same people oriented around roughly the same power lines. If there is any change, it likely be in name only.

I think the Libertarian party will become much more prominent, and hopefully soon we'll see some three party elections. I think Libertarians could offer the country what it wants right now.

The Republican Party will exist in name, though it may stand for something different than it stands for now. Remember, the modern Republican party was originally founded almost completely on an anti-slavery platform. At the time, it was the "liberal" party.

The money attached to the "Republican Party" means it'll never go away. The way things are going, the Christian Right is driving out the rest of the 'conservatives' and the Dems are going to be dominant in '08, and 2012 is going to be a major turning point for America- either it irrevocably turns Right and becomes the "Christian Nation" the religious right demands, or religion gets kicked out of politics for a long time.

Let's hope it's the latter, if you're right about that (and I think it's feasible).