Too old-white-male, or, too right-wing?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012

    macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    So, with thousands of articles and blog entries out there worrying about the GOP, everyone seems to be coming to the same demographic conclusion. Male, pale, and stale, or, too old, too white, too male, and so on and so forth:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83472.html?hp=l4

    What nobody seems to want to talk about is whether the GOP is too right-wing. Too socially-conservative. Too threatened by single heterosexual women and married gay men. Too fundamentalist. Too much for a more moderate society. Maybe it is just the people I know ;) but even the admitted Romney supporters (rare) were embarrassed by the Akinses and Mourdocks and Bachmanns and Palins.

    I find it very odd that everyone is worried about "demographics" rather than policies, platforms, and beliefs.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #2
    There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are just as corrupt. We get four to eight years of one, followed by four to eight years of the next. The US is on its course like the Titanic with two captains: one steers the boat while the other sleeps. That's all.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    There are key policy differences between the two parties. And it's the policies of the right that are turning off a majority of the electorate.

    I know it comforts you to not believe that.

    But as the OP suggests, it's time that Republicans understood that their policies lost them the last election. And it's time for them to shift back towards the center, or be left behind.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #4
    What exactly makes the Dems corrupt? I've yet to be produced any democratic policies to support this notion.
     
  5. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #5
    Demographics more or less dictate policy. During the Reagan years, it was ok to pander to the older white male because there were a lot of them who voted. Now, there are fewer of them so the repubs have no choice but to change gears. That's why we've heard so much about the repubs embracing Hispanics. They have no demographic alternative. They'll never win much of the black vote or the gay vote or the environmental vote or the single mother vote but they do have a chance at the Hispanic vote.

    TBH, I think they need to leave the social conservatives behind. They'd pull in a good percentage of the independents and democrats if they stuck to fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, the party has been hijacked.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #6
    But see...the Democrats lost two elections to Republicans (President Bush). Now the Republicans have lost two elections to Democrats (President Obama). As I mentioned before we have either four or eight years of one political party, then the same with the other one. This is the way it has been for a long time.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #7
    The electoral college all or nothing per state system tends to stifle smaller parties from even gaining a foothold. It doesn't mean all of them are great simply due to being an alternative. It's just that the nature of our system allows for a somewhat comfortable duopoly.
     
  8. Scepticalscribe, Nov 10, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012

    Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    Kite flying
    #8
    Demographics feed into policy, and vice versa; certain policies attract a certain demographic, just as certain demographics (in this case, older white males, both white collar and, to some extent, blue collar) feel attracted to and reassured by certain policies (such as those which reaffirm the 'traditional' family as postulated as an ideal in the 1950s, where the man was head of household, women and children in their divinely ordained subordinate place, gays invisible, blacks and Latinos still second class citizens).

    Specific demographics feed into, influence and respond to certain policies; what was interesting about this election was the manner in which the Republicans not just faithfully replicated and embraced the prejudices of their lunatic fringe (and it is always instructive to note on which particular fringe the lunatics break out when studying a particular society), but how the expression of these policies served to actively alienate those (women, blacks, gays, Latinos) who were not a part of this demographic.

    This went well beyond expressing the preferences and prejudices of a specific part of the electorate; such policies, if implemented, would have undone decades of reform, and reduced the rights of significant sections of the electorate.



    I beg to differ. Actually, there are huge policy and attitudinal differences (on women, gays, minorities....) between the two political groups, and this election served to highlight them in ever greater graphic detail.

    Exactly.

    There is truth in that observation, but the significant difference between the parties - attitude, outlook, policies - remains.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #9
    Fiscally, maybe. But you can't be serious if you're suggesting that they are the same on social issues.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #10
    Living in Nowhere, Indiana, I've seen a lot of white males absolutely stunned that America "voted for social issues over the economy." I think that's the problem for Republicans. They're overwhelmingly white and male and can't comprehend that "legitimate rape" is a deal-breaker for women, absurd immigration laws are deal-breakers for latinos, homophobia is a deal-breaker for gays, etc. If Republicans had the very conservative candidate they wanted who was also able to distance him/herself from the liberty-invading crazies in their party, they probably would have beaten Obama.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    I agree. Obama was quite beatable.

    But think back to the Republican debates. Which one of those prospective nominees could have distanced "him/herself from the liberty-invading crazies in their party"?

    That person simply didn't exist.

    The Republicans need to rebuild their leadership from scratch. Because it's promoting candidates who are unelectable to the the majority of Americans.

    That party needs a major overhaul.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #12
    Fiscal conservatism? You mean like that Republican who erased the budget deficit (Clinton)? "Fiscal conservatism" is, unfortunately, laced with the absinthe of deregulation, and a side of military expansionism. These fundamental aspects of Republican policy AFAICT do more harm than good and then when it comes to addressing the budget they pass blame on to the anonymous horde of legislators who fatten up the measures with candy and toys to appease the folks back home. They tell us the system is broken, yet they offer no solutions.

    So, when you say the Republicans are the party of fiscal conservatism, I must call you on it. They do not even have that.
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #13
    Agreed. When people tell me they're fiscally conservative and socially liberally (a phrase that is regurgitated by so many people who think they know politics) and were thus contemplating a vote for Romney, I have to call them out because Romney's platform was so far from being fiscal.
     
  14. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #14
    Hey, I resemble that remark.

    Romney was neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal. Nor fiscally liberal and socially conservative, either. He was on both sides of every issue, except for one: no tax increases for the rich. Romney was a throwback to 100 years ago in that regard.

    Back to demographics: not a majority, but, lots of older white males voted for Obama, too. I'm guessing that not every older white male wants to return to the era of racism, homophobia, "legitimate rape" and "barefoot and pregnant". For some older white males, all the hate is indeed a dealbreaker.

    "Fiscally conservative" tends to mean at least two different things. To one group, it means cutting their own taxes, period. Let's call that "Group 1".

    To another group, it means a mostly balanced budget, low inflation, low debt (public and private), and a bias towards generating enough investment to sustain the economy and keep most people employed. "Group 2".

    "Group 1" often claims that cutting taxes automatically brings about the "Group 2" results. History shows otherwise.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #15
    Sorry, let me clarify. I was referring to people who said that but were in fact, grossly low-informed about Romney's platform.

    I think nearly everyone in here is socially liberal and fiscally conservative (in the right ways, of course), including me.

    ----------

    I would like to think that fiscal conservatism means your second definition and nothing else. The first group is not fiscally conservative, and I didn't need an econ textbook to tell me that.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #16
    No, that's not what I am saying. Both are the same in relation to things that affect our nation economically, corruption, dirty politics, ad such.
     
  17. Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    Kite flying
    #17


    "Nearly everyone in here" are not necessarily 'socially liberal and fiscally conservative'. Granted, many of those from the US most certainly are, but there are those from other places on the political spectrum.

    Me, I'm a classical European social democrat, veering towards what we term 'socialism' in the Old World. In other words, I am 'socially liberal and fiscally liberal', too. Thus, I see a significant role for Government in (proactive) public policy, but that is a debate for a different thread.

    Actually, no, not really, they are not , in fact, the same'. Believe it or not, you have had the great good fortune to live in a country where a genuine alternative was on offer during the recent election campaign, and where the election was contested between two candidates who represented two strikingly different world views, buttressed by the respective policies which informed those world views. Not many countries - outside of the First World - get to have the luxury of a genuine choice between parties and candidates.
     
  18. AlaskaMoose, Nov 10, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #18
    Yes, we indeed have alternatives, but that's not what I have referred to. What I am referring to is that the outcome of their actions (Republican/Democrat leaders) is the same. That's why I said that our nation is like The Titanic being steered by two captains; one steers the boat while the other sleeps. We are at the brink of an economic collapse (hitting an iceberg).

    Both the Republicans and Democrats engage in dirty politics, both tax us all day and spend all night, both work deals under the table to their own benefit instead of the nation's, both engage in war, both get in trouble with the law and at the same tame create laws to protect themselves (insiders trading, for example), both offer military contracts to family members and friends, both create our tax laws and the loopholes attached, both create the laws that allow for job outsourcing and turn around and accuse each other of doing it, and so on...
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #19
    I somewhat agree with a little modification....it's not the party leaders that are promoting unelectable candidates. It's the right wing media. What were once fringe crazy ideas, have now become accepted as valid in the right wing. This is because people listen to non-stop crackpots on Fox News or on the radio like Rush Limbaugh and start buying the notion that these outlandish extreme candidates are the same as Ronald Reagan or Republicans of the past, when they just aren't. They are still fringe, still extremist in their party. But they have been allowed to take center stage by an electorate that has been fed a steady diet of extremism themselves.

    This is where the Republican leaders come in. They need to push back against that. But they are afraid to. Afraid that they themselves will be replaced by an extreme candidate in the next election. And therein lies the problem.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #20
    I do agree with you on this. As an independent voter for numerous years now, the Republican leaders, including Karl Rove, have brought forward very weak candidates. The Republican Party "handlers" have been out of touch with the people for quite awhile, and voters go along the party lines to the ballot box by habit or just choosing the lesser of two evils.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #21
    Social conservatism has no place in politics unless it is the traditional conservative view that the government has absolutely no right to mandate how you choose to live. Fiscal conservatism, however, is a necessity if we are ever going to get out of debt. The problem is that social conservatism is, in addition to hindering the progression of basic human rights, also hindering fiscal conservatism.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    #22
    They lost because they weren't conservative or hard-line enough. :p

    Come on, be more socially conservative next time, even more hard-line. You know you want to.... The Democrats want you to be more conservative too. :D


    Kidding aside, this is a problem that the American public needs to fix. You need to govern yourselves. And part of that is switching off from these far-right wing media sources (eg the Limbaughs and FOX).

    They understand one thing, money! And when it starts drying up because people aren't listening or watching, that's when they'll start to change.

    The scary thing is that if Reagan was running at the moment as a Republican candidate, he'd be too Liberal for the Republican party.

    Social conservatism of the Republicans is getting in the way of sensible, rational policy. They need a middle of the road candidate who is basically normal, and has centre political ideas. (ie, not left-wing, not right-wing, but a little bit of both in moderation).
     
  23. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #23
    I get that they send different messages yet remain generic enough to appeal to large groups of people. The point I wanted to make was that other parties aren't able to display a big enough impact under the current system to really make a statement or gain any leverage. Given that they can't carry any specific states, people regard such votes as wasted. It allows the current parties to become too comfortable in their positions. The knowledge that a party has to carry the majority of votes in a state to impact the electoral college results dissuades most people from voting for even researching them. You can't really have successful third parties when such votes are regarded as wasted.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #24
    It's not the candidate. It's Republican policies which are ass backwards. It doesn't matter what face you slap on the front. They're still lame worn over Bush policies.
     
  25. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #25
    Here is a right-wing website where that exact view is expressed:

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012111017373/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/the-voters-who-stayed-home.html

    The author, by the way, is Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute.

    A related blog post (by someone else):



    So, yes, there are a bunch of people who think this way. My estimate is about 20% of voters overall, although I would be interested in seeing this quantified. And, I do think they should have their own party.
     

Share This Page