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

[caketastydelish]

There has been talk that these immigrants (especially hispanics) are going to destroy the Republicans chance of winning a general election because they heavily vote democrat. And yes, on the surface, that is indeed true.

But will it hold true in 100 years? How about 50 years? Let's use history to find out.

In the 1910's, most of America's immigrants were from Eastern European countries. Most "native" Americans were from Western European countries. The Western Europeans that were in America looked down upon the Eastern European immigrants, and these eastern europeans were seen as a "minority". They got the worst jobs if any job, they were poor, and they voted left wing. So obviously, it would seem like in time the country would go Socialist.

But did this happen? No, because after a few generations these eastern europeans integrated and intermarried into American society and had just as much money as everyone else, and thus, voted Conservative just as much as everyone else.

So why can the same not be said of the immigrants coming to America today? And even among the black vote, I think the same can be said. Yes blacks have been living in this country for a long time, but they haven't been given a truly fair shot until the civil rights act, which hasn't been that long.

So just as minorities are now "destroying" the republican party, they will one day build it back up.

Note that I am NOT a Republican. I'm quite a left winger and I see this as more of a bad thing than a good thing. But this is just a theory I've come up with. What do you guys think?

 

[civver_764]

Yeah I think as long we have classes conservatism is going to exist.

 

[King Kalmah]

Even the majority of eastern Europeans have only been here 50/60 years tops...(Communist revolts/invasions)I agree with you since my relatives/ancestors were Democratic and slowly the family has evolved to be more conservative,,,(esp the last 15 years)

 

[BvBPL]

The notion that the Republican party is "doomed" at all is spitting in the wind. The GOP controls the lower house, has sufficient seats in the senate to hold a filibuster, and has 29 governors. That is far from doomed.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Right, so the GOP= always wins. I was being told this by everyone on the right just a few days ago.

Yes, something called the GOP will always be around. Will it include all of its present components in fifty years? Not a chance. The Democratic party is already an amorphous cloud so we're used to it

GOP voters have more in common with each other intellectually. The Left is a coalition of convenience, and that is our greatest strength and weakness. For example, I have basically nothing in common intellectually with a 70 year old black female evangelical that just voted for the same guy.

 

[emzie]

The GOP isn't doomed. The GOP's current platform is doomed. That's what matters.

 

[Evie]

In the 1910's, most of America's immigrants were from Eastern European countries. Most "native" Americans were from Western European countries. The Western Europeans that were in America looked down upon the Eastern European immigrants, and these eastern europeans were seen as a "minority". They got the worst jobs if any job, they were poor, and they voted left wing. So obviously, it would seem like in time the country would go Socialist.

But did this happen? No, because after a few generations these eastern europeans integrated and intermarried into American society and had just as much money as everyone else, and thus, voted Conservative just as much as everyone else.

Of course, starting about a generation after 1910, the Democrats (who I think were the "Poor people party" at that point) got the New Deal rolling and became the clear dominant party of the United States for a looooong time.

32 years of Democrat presidents (to 16 of Republicans). Including the longest one-party presidential streak since the founding fathers (Roosevelt/Truman, 20 years and five mandates)
40+ years of controlling the senate (to 6 of Republicans). Including an uninterrupted 26-years streak. (54-80)
40+ years of controlling the house (to 6 of Republicans), which would continue for another 14 years until 1994. Including an uninterrupted streak of forty years. (54-94)

True, the Republicans eventually recovered, rebuilt their strength, and managed to make themselves felt again, as demographics continued to shift and culture as well. There's no question there.

But hey, if we're really looking at THAT kind of scenario again...I think most Democrats would take the thought of the GOP eventually rebuilding in stride.

DISCLAIMER: I do not consider this scenario likely.

 

[caketastydelish]

Be sure to keep in mind with FDR it was not just the demographics of the country but also the Great Depression itself. Americans blamed the Republican party for the great depression and did not forgive them for a long time.

Obama has quite possibly prevented another Great Depression from occurring. If Romney of McCain won and got the country into another great depression, Republicans would have the same chance to become elected president as a libertarian.

 

[King Kalmah]

Be sure to keep in mind with FDR it was not just the demographics of the country but also the Great Depression itself. Americans blamed the Republican party for the great depression and did not forgive them for a long time.

Obama has quite possibly prevented another Great Depression from occurring. If Romney of McCain won and got the country into another great depression, Republicans would have the same chance to become elected president as a libertarian.

Look we didn't give Hoover enough time(same argument you guys use for Obama) and you can only speculate about the past...plus Americans were more reactionary in the past.WE as a society today have far to many distractions.I think that is why many people keep the same political affiliation for the majority of their life since they were born into it and never really look beyond their "pasture" and see the bigger picture....I was born into a democtatic family,but I can say I like less regulation and more pro business.As far as sex goes do what ever you want...so yeah I'm not the most conservative person,but I want a better economy and not "oh less unemployment today"...(since after 6 months they drop you...not that you got a job or anything right?you are still unemployed,but you are no longer counted)

what if Al Gore won????yeah useless...

We gave Obama another chance...he better not turn this into a 2nd world country like everyone is expecting/thinking....Obama 2016 movie is an eye opener...

 

[Hygro]

Look we didn't give Hoover enough time(same argument you guys use for Obama) and you can only speculate about the past...plus Americans were more reactionary in the past.WE as a society today have far to many distractions.I think that is why many people keep the same political affiliation for the majority of their life since they were born into it and never really look beyond their "pasture" and see the bigger picture....I was born into a democtatic family,but I can say I like less regulation and more pro business.As far as sex goes do what ever you want...so yeah I'm not the most conservative person,but I want a better economy and not "oh less unemployment today"...(since after 6 months they drop you...not that you got a job or anything right?you are still unemployed,but you are no longer counted)

what if Al Gore won????yeah useless...

We gave Obama another chance...he better not turn this into a 2nd world country like everyone is expecting/thinking....Obama 2016 movie is an eye opener...

It's not about speculation, it's about social science. We know economics. We know their policies. We know what legislation Hoover promoted as Legislator in Chief (that is one of the president's titles), we know who he backed at the Fed.

Hoover promoted staying on gold, Hoover promoted primarily fiscal austerity, and Hoover promoted keeping interest rates high. The reason we said "Obama wasn't given enough time" (on the premise we might vote him out for not implementing good policies for recovery) is that we know the policies that work. Obama was enacting them, but slowly as Congress wasn't too into stimulus compared to what was needed. But they were the right types of policies.

Romney was against the policies that worked. Hoover was against the policies that worked (his stimulus was tiny, he was for austerity). We know we didn't not give Hoover enough time. There's no comparison to the present president.

 

[King Kalmah]

Austerity is no good...agreed,but the Gold Standard would have been more secure then our current oil based economy since every single thing is tied to the price of oil...

Gold is finite and would not be disappearing as fast as oil....unless alot of spanish galleons sank again....

 

[Hygro]

Austerity is no good...agreed,but the Gold Standard would have been more secure then our current oil based economy since every single thing is tied to the price of oil...

Gold is finite and would not be disappearing as fast as oil....unless alot of spanish galleons sank again....

Gold has advantages and disadvantages but is fundamentally flawed. Oil is tied to the dollar but not fixed to it, so it's largely free flowing.

Everything is tied to the price of oil in large part because of use value. It's simply that money is, among many things, largely reflective of the price of productive/consumptive energy. Oil is the main source of energy for the world, so the price of commodities, including money, are all anchored by it.

 

[King Kalmah]

Gold has advantages and disadvantages but is fundamentally flawed.

.

The bottom part of your post states my point more eloquently,but how is gold flawed?

I wouldn't mind a learning of the subject/explanation why gold can't work in our modern times...

 

[WindFish]

The bottom part of your post states my point more eloquently,but how is gold flawed?

I wouldn't mind a learning of the subject/explanation why gold can't work in our modern times...

Because we all have fiat currenicies

 

[Murky]

I think they need to start recruiting younger candidates and more minority candidates. They also need to change their party platform.

 

[Smellincoffee]

The difference between the 19th century and today is that then they were experiencing unparalleled economic growth that created opportunities for prosperity. Society was being transformed by the year with the expansion of rail lines, the birth of consumer markets, and so on. But now, all of the "low-hanging fruit" has been picked; the frontier of commerce has been completely taken over. We're saturated with stuff.

 

[Cutlass]

The bottom part of your post states my point more eloquently,but how is gold flawed?

I wouldn't mind a learning of the subject/explanation why gold can't work in our modern times...

Details HERE

Short answer: The economy is constantly needing changes in the supply of money in order to run without disruptions. Gold, being a commodity, changes availability at rates that have little to do with the rest of the economy. So if gold is money, then the quantity of money available to the economy will essentially always be wrong for the demands of the economy. And so gold is always disruptive to the economy in the long run.

 

[timtofly]

Historically speaking, the US has always been a "split" country. If people want a third party, then now is the time. I doubt there will ever be a single minded country though, no matter how nebulous a democratic society thinks they can be.

 

[Azale]

So it's doomed until it shifts its platform towards the center and left? Sounds good.

 

[kochman]

The notion that the Republican party is "doomed" at all is spitting in the wind. The GOP controls the lower house, has sufficient seats in the senate to hold a filibuster, and has 29 governors. That is far from doomed.

The R's need to get their heads out of their wazzoos...

The whole thing is, they get accused of being racist, etc... It makes it easy for the D's to paint that picture when they make a big point of going against gay marriage, etc.
We have bigger fish to fry here people.

It's ridiculous.

When the Repubs got repudiated at the polls in 2006 & 2008, it was time to go to the drawing board, and look at the future and its challenges. Instead, they doubled down on the right wing push. The Tea Party started out with decent ideas, and then turned into a fringe group of wackos... and have cost the Repubs a lot, including the respect of people who actually stop and think about the platform.

I was, in 2000, a Repub, yes, I voted for Bush Jr the first time around... Gore was unstable.

Since then, when they barely had me... they've gone further and further away from reality. They went from Reagan's party of "stay out of my wallet and my bedroom" to, well, dictating morals left and right. Using stupid issues to keep the bible belt in tact is costing them the future.

I saw the stats, the top 10 educated states, they all went Dem... the least educated, 9 of the 10 went Repub.

So, R's, keep fighting gays, immigrants, and women's individual freedom and let me know how that works out for you all in the future. Modern society is nowhere near you, and your minor appeal fiscally is being drowned out.

End of rant.