A theory- Why the GOP is doomed in the short term but not in the long.

GW, would you please do Hygro the favor of at least acknowledging the long post he wrote just for you?
 
Gracias Leoreth.

GW, I'm glad you didn't try to take a cheap-shot for a response (though I must say.... good luck trying ;)). That said to have had you ask to try to back up my statement after I had taken the time to discuss the nature of recessions and stimulus on your user-wall was frustrating.
 
Parties have realigned in the past 150 years.

The GOP replaced the Whig party, and was Lincoln's party. The Democrats at the time was a southern populist party that opposed abolition.

I doubt many in today's GOP would fit in the GOP of even a hundred years ago.

My view is that the current GOP is doomed in the long-term, but not in the short term. I am certain there will be a few more waves of angry white envangelicas striking out in mid-term elections. My worst case fear is the far right goes ape with assassination plots and various anti-government movements when they start losing elections in the next 10 years.

But the current coalition has no hope. Demographers saw it coming as early as the 2000 race, and indeed, the GOP lost the popular vote in that election and has lost 5 of the last six presidential elections (popular vote under 50%)

They've won in recent times on vote splitting, technicalities and the Supreme Court. The fact that the demographics didn't catch up to them until this election is not a sign it wasn't coming or that Obama somehow manipulated the system with voter fraud, as some far right forums are suggestion.

The last time Repubs truly captured the popular vote decisively was probably in 1988, and I was like seven years old then. I'm 31 now. It's ancient history.
 
Dexters, in that case, what do you think will replace the current GOP then?
 
Dexters, in that case, what do you think will replace the current GOP then?

There is no replacing the current coalition. It has no future. Religion and older white voters are going to become less relevant. That's just a demographic reality.

Whether the GOP retains the party structure/name is possible.

Recall the Democrats after FDR could bank on reliable Roosevelt voters to vote Democratic. The South was once solid Democrat.

There will be a shift, a new coalition needs to be made. But the Democrats currently have the young, the educated and the minorities. They have also largely absorbed the Rockefeller republicans in New England and Californa. The rich industrialist class who has a sense of social responsibility to give back. Not the rich parasite classes who now identify as republican because they can lower their own taxes.

Despite all the rhethoric, the current Republican party is run by the evangelicals with a few rich hangers on in the party because they can lower their taxes. The irony as I pointed out in another thread is the current Republican powerbase are poor,working class whites who rail against tax increases because they've been braindwashed to tihnk it will cost them dearly, when in fact, they would likely benefit from the rich paying a little more. And indeed, many of them live in states that receive more federal transfers than those in the blue states that provide net transfer to the red states.

Republicans of 50 years ago were far more flexible on the tax issue, and many did indeed choose to raise taxes for the good of the country. They were more about good government. That's no longer the case. And I would argue, hasn't been the case for a generation.
 
My worst case fear is the far right goes ape with assassination plots and various anti-government movements when they start losing elections in the next 10 years.

Sadly, I keep holding my breath and waiting for this.

When you think God is on your side and the sinful, decadent populace needs to be firmly ruled by the righteous then you can easily justify a few bombings and assassinations.
 
Gracias Leoreth.

GW, I'm glad you didn't try to take a cheap-shot for a response (though I must say.... good luck trying ;)). That said to have had you ask to try to back up my statement after I had taken the time to discuss the nature of recessions and stimulus on your user-wall was frustrating.

I don't really think there's anything I can say. My level of economics education is that I'm in the middle of a high school class. You've likely taken several college-level classes, so what can I say?

There are probably educated people who take a decentralized position, are there not? I don't fit the "Educated" bit.

My economics teacher, ironically enough, is a Reagan-conservative, and its a college level class too.

Sadly, I keep holding my breath and waiting for this.

When you think God is on your side and the sinful, decadent populace needs to be firmly ruled by the righteous then you can easily justify a few bombings and assassinations.

I doubt it. Considering most of them oppose vigilante killings even of abortion doctors, I highly doubt they are going to support it against political leaders either.

Where is MisterCooper BTW?
 
I doubt it. Considering most of them oppose vigilante killings even of abortion doctors, I highly doubt they are going to support it against political leaders either.

That's true, but they haven't seen how far "down" we're about to go.
 
I find it funny actually (Purely theoretical point) why pro-life people have advocated a Federal anti-abortion law, which is not constitutional, but none have proposed that the President just pardon vigilantes like Scott Roeder, which is constitutional:p

Our country is indeed going to crash and burn. The sad thing is that voting "R" isn't really going to save us. Our "Fiscal conservatives" are only fiscally conservative when it comes to things that AREN'T their pet projects, like national defense (I mean, national offense), foreign wars, and the like.

Ron Paul even said that since people are so dependent on welfare he'd kill the foreign spending first.
 
I find it funny actually (Purely theoretical point) why pro-life people have advocated a Federal anti-abortion law, which is not constitutional, but none have proposed that the President just pardon vigilantes like Scott Roeder, which is constitutional:p

Our country is indeed going to crash and burn. The sad thing is that voting "R" isn't really going to save us. Our "Fiscal conservatives" are only fiscally conservative when it comes to things that AREN'T their pet projects, like national defense (I mean, national offense), foreign wars, and the like.

Ron Paul even said that since people are so dependent on welfare he'd kill the foreign spending first.

This is pending the environment. Even a potential fiscal meltdown is purely dependent on the environment. If crash and burn is inevitable, I'll vote Democratic because they'll at least make sure we have seatbelts and airbags before the impact ;)
 
There is no replacing the current coalition. It has no future. Religion and older white voters are going to become less relevant. That's just a demographic reality.

Whether the GOP retains the party structure/name is possible.

Recall the Democrats after FDR could bank on reliable Roosevelt voters to vote Democratic. The South was once solid Democrat.

There will be a shift, a new coalition needs to be made. But the Democrats currently have the young, the educated and the minorities. They have also largely absorbed the Rockefeller republicans in New England and Californa. The rich industrialist class who has a sense of social responsibility to give back. Not the rich parasite classes who now identify as republican because they can lower their own taxes.

Despite all the rhethoric, the current Republican party is run by the evangelicals with a few rich hangers on in the party because they can lower their taxes. The irony as I pointed out in another thread is the current Republican powerbase are poor,working class whites who rail against tax increases because they've been braindwashed to tihnk it will cost them dearly, when in fact, they would likely benefit from the rich paying a little more. And indeed, many of them live in states that receive more federal transfers than those in the blue states that provide net transfer to the red states.

Republicans of 50 years ago were far more flexible on the tax issue, and many did indeed choose to raise taxes for the good of the country. They were more about good government. That's no longer the case. And I would argue, hasn't been the case for a generation.
Well that's what happened to both the democratic and republican parties before. Both parties have went through major overhauls to where they are today. Democrats used to be very popular in the south, for example. Blacks used to vote Republican. All of this said, what direction do you think the Republican party will go to? You've done a good job of emphasizing that the current GOP is looked grim (which I would tend to agree) but you haven't really gone about the specifics of what they should do to attract new voters. Keep in mind they have to change WHILE still being significantly different in at least some ways from the democratic party.
My economics teacher, ironically enough, is a Reagan-conservative, and its a college level class too.
You know, I can't honestly say I like this, and it's not just because your teacher is a Reagan conservative. In two of my four classes (the other two make no political statements at all) the professors are VERY liberal and are constantly putting the GOP down. As a left winger myself I tend to agree with their rants, but that's besides the point. I don't think teachers/professors should make political comments. Whether I agree with them or not is besides the point. Unless they're majoring in political science, students should be able to complete their education without discussing politics. And even in economics, I believe this is the case.
I doubt it. Considering most of them oppose vigilante killings even of abortion doctors, I highly doubt they are going to support it against political leaders either.

No, actually, there have been cases of domestic terrorist attacks against abortion clinics. So there ya go.
 
Haha "college level"

I do wonder what that means. AP micro?

On another forum when I debated economic stuff I used to make appeals to my university for why I was right. I got rightly told off for doing so by a forum-cum-RL-friend. Nevertheless sometimes I just want to go "I go to the 4th best school for economics in the world, I know what I'm talking about!" (I think it's actually ranked 6-7 by most indices this year) But that's lame, so then instead I write a bazillion words on the subject to try to educate people who argue opposite positions, usually to be ignored. Here's an example of my writing for such an occurrence,

as we are facing the kind of global economic downturn that is categorized in type (not just scope) as the one in the 1930s and not the interest-rate driven recessions of say 1981 (which was more severe at its peak), businesses aren't investing and hiring because there is a lack of a customer base (and in some cases, still a credit crunch like in my dad's small firm as banks are parked on cash and not lending).

A large Republican argument is that businesses are ready to invest and hire as soon as they aren't afraid of things like changes in policy or fear of inflation. That in fact this confidence issue is one *the* primary things preventing economic recovery.

Most of us in this kind of audience who are not convinced by Mitt Romney are those who have concluded by economic models and history, or are going off the trust in others who will make this case, that this kind of business confidence plays a small roll. That when there's sufficient demand, nothing will stop businesses from trying to capture customers (forget macro econ a second, that's a tenant of competitive and monopolistically competitive micro-econ markets). To believe the narrative of a demand shortage is accepting modern and most neoclassical economic models post "supply-actually-isn't-demand.", empirically rejecting the logical-but-incorrect Ricardian equivilence, as well as to accept that way to solve a systemwide credit crisis market failure recession is to close the demand gap. (That monetary policy is better for the *other* kind of recession).

The challenge for Republican campaigners is that they are going against economics in general by playing Keynes's animal spirits idea on steroids while rejecting his and all the theorists after his theories on actual macroeconomics.

We know that in aggregate, government spending at the zero lower bound of interest rates and when firms aren't investing to full employment, there is not a crowding out of business effect (in some small ways there are, of course). So there is a positive multiplier effect. Meanwhile we know that firms right now are holding TONS of cash. Since investment drives employment, and holding cash isn't investment, we know they need incentive to invest.

Here's where we come full circle to point 1. The nearly-consensus economic model and basically democratic party platform is that most businesses will be quick to move on profit opportunities the moment there is a paying customer base, and therefore we need more government spending (IN THE SHORT RUN!) to bridge this gap. Once the gears turn, they turn and government can bounce.

The Republican model is that a promise of longterm non-policy change will relax all the companies and they will spontaneously invest and solve the problem. Now, it has to be all at once because if it's not, it's a prisoner's dilemma. If I invest and three of you don't, I lose money because you didn't provide the employment I needed to sustain my investment, and I didn't provide enough to incentivize your investment. So somehow a Republican presidency will immediately and cohesively unleash pent up investment.

And if you can convince me that's possible, well, too late I submitted my ballot but I will publicly make the case for Romney.
 
I do wonder what that means. AP micro?

On another forum when I debated economic stuff I used to make appeals to my university for why I was right. I got rightly told off for doing so by a forum-cum-RL-friend. Nevertheless sometimes I just want to go "I go to the 4th best school for economics in the world, I know what I'm talking about!" (I think it's actually ranked 6-7 by most indices this year) But that's lame, so then instead I write a bazillion words on the subject to try to educate people who argue opposite positions, usually to be ignored. Here's an example of my writing for such an occurrence,


I find it amazing how many people have politically rehabilitated Say's Law for no other reason than that Supply Side Economics cannot be shown to work unless Say's Law works. When I was in college studying economics Say's Law didn't even rate a mention in most textbooks, and not more than a paragraph saying how it was wrong in the ones that did mention it.
 
I do wonder what that means. AP micro?

On another forum when I debated economic stuff I used to make appeals to my university for why I was right. I got rightly told off for doing so by a forum-cum-RL-friend. Nevertheless sometimes I just want to go "I go to the 4th best school for economics in the world, I know what I'm talking about!" (I think it's actually ranked 6-7 by most indices this year) But that's lame, so then instead I write a bazillion words on the subject to try to educate people who argue opposite positions, usually to be ignored. Here's an example of my writing for such an occurrence,

If it's any consolation you are one of only about 10 posters on OT who I will actually take the time to sit down a read. I absolutely appreciate when you write long economic posts.
 
I find it amazing how many people have politically rehabilitated Say's Law for no other reason than that Supply Side Economics cannot be shown to work unless Say's Law works. When I was in college studying economics Say's Law didn't even rate a mention in most textbooks, and not more than a paragraph saying how it was wrong in the ones that did mention it.
Yeah, I remember reading the book my Objectivist friend wanted me to read to understand why Austrian economics was so much better. "Economics in One Lesson". 20 pages in I discovered far too many fallacies, one of which was "supply is demand". I rofl'd at that and closed the book. About a year later the "debate" of Say's Law became huge in the economist blogosphere.


If it's any consolation you are one of only about 10 posters on OT who I will actually take the time to sit down a read. I absolutely appreciate when you write long economic posts.

It is. I really appreciate that--that actually means a lot to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom