As go the Tories, so go the Republicans?

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think the GOP would serve itself well by focusing on how to maintain stable communities. In a day and age where a child is most likely not going to die within 50 miles of the community where he graduated from high school, the GOP would do well to focus on sytems and programs that enable communities to self perpetuate themselves. Good luck with that by the way. Until the GOP can figure that out, small government will not be possible, either physically or electorally.

But one of the reasons why the Tories in Britain have had to reinvent themselves is that they've been in the political wilderness for more than a decade now. Perhaps the first thing that the GOP needs in order to "revive and renew" itself is to spend several years completely out of power. The Republicans have controlled either Congress or the presidency, or both, for all but two of the past 28 years. They aren't going to do the necessary self-examination until they get the Order of the Boot for several consecutive election cycles and are forced to ask themselves why the voters have rejected them.

First, forget any notion of stable communities where people move in but don't move out. That is never going to sell and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Second, keep your damned noses out of what people believe to be totally private matters. Terri Schaivo cost the GOP more seats than Iraq did in 2006. You can't ship the Religious Right off to Iran, even though they would be happier there, but aside from throwing them a rhetorical bone every now and then, ignore them. Where are they going to go?

Third, don't be afraid of radical notions on the economy. It may be necessary to nationalize the energy industry, cut and cap prices and institute long prison terms for execs of companies that fail to provide enough product. But at the same time politically knee-cap the environmentalists so that they cannot get in the way of exploiting the massive resources that we have.

Be ruthless. The Democrats are.

Terri Schaivo cost the GOP more seats than Iraq did in 2006.

I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think you may be right, Charles. I know there was a lot of chatter right around that time, to every conceivable and inconceivable point, but in the end it looked like political grandstanding. Political figures came in on one side of what was essentially a private family dispute not because they gave a fig about Theresa Schiavo, but because they thought they could make political hay of it.

And those of us who are Boomers or nearly so, like myself, began to wonder if these boyos were going to override our wishes about our end-of-life care too, just as they sought to override Theresa's. In the pursuit of some "moral" value intelligible only to themselves. Most older people I know do not find the idea of being overridden on this point an attractive concept.

Almost to a man or woman, my elderly clients are horrified by the idea of having their organic "life" extended past the death of real consciousness. I don't find it an attractive prospect myself. And almost no one is edified by political grandstanding.

"Cameron also believes government should help social entrepreneurs scale up their activities without burdening them with excessive oversight."

If someone could explain to me just what a "social entrepreneur" is I might be able to grasp how this relates to "Crunchy Con-ism". I'm sure it's something profound in the political lexicon, but for some reason, I'm picturing a pub owner.

Can we please return to answering the question I posed? I'm less interested in why the GOP is going to hell, and more interested in what ideas those who will be tasked with rebuilding the party can and should embrace.

I don't really want to hear anything about policies or ideas. I also don't want to hear another politician talk about lowering my taxes. I mean, I pay plenty in taxes. Way too much in fact, but that isn't the reason to be conservative. That is an appeal to selfishness and selfishness shouldn't be the reason to vote for anyone.

What I want is for someone, or an entire political party, to talk about freedom.

Here in Minnesota our legislators are discussing whether to allow policemen to pull someone over on suspicion of not wearing a seatbelt. After several rounds of debate which focused on rates of traffic casualties, costs to the system (ugh!), and so forth, one DFL legislator stood up and said "I think I am the last liberal left in this body. 'Liberal' comes from 'liberty' and no one else here seems to care about the freedom of Minnesotans." I wish I lived in his district because he would be about the only DFL person I could vote for. The Republicans are better on the policies, but it is as if they have no clue why they don't want anti-smoking laws, anti-transfat laws, and the incredible increase in regulations and interferances that govt visits upon us.

Another MN example: they are also debating whether to allow people to bring their dogs with them when they visit an outdoors eatery. Got that? We are to the point where we now debate whether to allow things, not just whether to forbid them. Doesn't it feel that way in everyday life? How often do we want to do something, but we pause and wonder if it's legal instead of being comfortable that a man should be able to what he wants in his own castle?

Rob G: Amen! To me that seems to be the problem with the Republican party right there. They look around at Bush's low approval rating, the lack of support across all bases for the Iraq War and their loss in demographics and say "Oh no! We're losing our Republican base. I know,
Let's be more like the Democrats. Your stimulus check is in the mail."

The problem is they need to be more like Republicans.

Almost all of the people that I know who are abandoning the GOP are thoughtful conservatives who don't find the party consistently conservative enough for them to support it. Many of us have come to believe that "better than the opposition" simply isn't good enough anymore.

Rod,

A few ideas for the GOP to run with:

1) Returning to fiscal and monetary conservatism. They will need to denounce the behavior of Bush and the Republican Congress 2001-2007, but said behavior wasn't very conservative in the first place.

2) Energy independence and environmentalism as an issue of national defense. They should propose measures that will began weaning our nation off its dependency on oil and move it in an environmentally friendly direct. This will make America safer (less need for concern with foreign oil), cleaner, and will help businesses and individuals by cutting energy costs.

3) Return the "culture war" issues to the states. Republicans should insist that legislation on abortion, gay rights, etc. be left to the states. This is the most democratic way to do things as it places the decision in the hands of the voters through their duly elected legislators instead of the courts. This would satisfy conservatives in red states, but wouldn't make liberals in blue states feel threatened.

4) Immigration reform focused on employers. Building a wall isn't going to stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country. The best way to stop it is to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegals through steep fines. Make such that it isn't worth the risk for employers. The government won't have to build walls or round up illegals if employers won't hire them in the first place.

I think the four ideas I've outlined above would help return Republicans to more conservative principals, would help them politically, and more importantly, would benefit the country.
The problem, however, is that Republicans don't just suffer from a lack of ideas. After all the mistakes of Republican rule at the federal level 2001-2007, Republicans have lost a lot of credibility, even among many conservatives. Even if they embraced some good, solid, conservative ideas, they will likely have to suffer a few defeats before they are trusted again.

rr

Finally, I will revoke the law that says the child of an illegal immigrant, born in the U.S., is automatically a citizen.

That is not a law. That is the 14th amendment.

Hurray for Rob G! I think he's exactly right on both his previous posts.

Second, keep your damned noses out of what people believe to be totally private matters.

What if we believe that they're not "totally private matters" -- but matters of public morality.

To Susan: your clients have been propagandized into accepting a lie. The lie is that they are somehow acting nobly when they sign DNR's and do so-called "living wills." They do not know that by doing so, they may face a long and tortuous death by being starved and dehydrated to death. (Actually just the latter, since death comes from dehydration several days before death by starvation.) This is not just speculation, as a lawyer, I've seen it happen.

The reality is that there is culture of death which is nowhere stronger than in our medical facilities, which seeks every opportunity to choose death.

Treebeard: such anti-immigrant actions are indeed extremely popular, but extremely immoral. Jim Crow was also popular in the South (where I was born, reared and still live.)

That doesn't make it right or conservative, but it does tend to keep pushing me toward the exit door from the only political party I've known, the GOP.

fbc, how is it immoral to insist that businesses hire citizens and legal immigrants? How is it immoral to enforce immigration laws? Jim Crow has nothing to do with it. I'm not arguing nativism or racial/cultural superiority. I'm very happy for people to migrate here legally, including from Mexico. I consider it immoral that people break the laws with impunity, and our government does nothing about it.

"The problem, however, is that Republicans don't just suffer from a lack of ideas. After all the mistakes of Republican rule at the federal level 2001-2007, Republicans have lost a lot of credibility, even among many conservatives. Even if they embraced some good, solid, conservative ideas, they will likely have to suffer a few defeats before they are trusted again."

Your four ideas for the GOP are very good ones, rr. The problem with #3 however, is that federal power via the courts now trumps any vestige of states' rights that was left after the Civil War, and the resultant subsequent expansion of the federal government's power that's occurred since then. The 10th Amendment is basically dead; it might as well not even be on the list anymore. Of course I think your idea is a good one in principle, but as long as the federal government, via the courts, has the sole power to A) interpret the Constitution and B) declare certain things unconstitutional based on its own interpretation, it seems to me like it's a lost cause.

To be precise, it is not the 14th amendment, it is the judicial interpretation of that amendment. The Supreme Court could overturn the interpretation, which is a historical anachronism originally decided to stop Southernors from claiming freed slaves were not Americans.

There's no need to change philosophy because liberty is unchanging; what's needed is new applications to meet the challenges of new problems. The current GOP either doesn't believe in liberty or is unable to think of new ideas.

I hear many people bitching on the blogosphere, but are you a member of your local Republican committee? A lot of the problem is that we the grassroots became complacent, thinking we could be led by elected officials. It only takes a small number of people to change the debate and reinvigorate the party, as the many victories achieved by Ron Paul make clear.

RJ, you mean the baby who was fathered by the Sun?

I believe that the GOP is in decline, as is the Democratic Party. Both parties are being torn apart by their extremes.

In the GOP, the ongoing conflict between economic conservatives and social conservatives is simmering slowly, dampered by the Presidential campaign. Once that is over the grass-roots support that Huckabee is building will begin to push against the remnants of the Rockefeller Republicans, and one of the two groups will lose control of the party...and may well leave. Look for it to be the fiscal conservatives.

The Democrats war is not simmering, it is boiling hot right now. The party is on the verge of a race war, one that will kill the party outright if not quickly dealt with by those remaining in leadership after this election. The primary season has sown seeds that will mature in January of next year, whether or not the Democrats take the White House. If McCain wins, look for open warfare. If Obama wins, look for a more quiet affair that will take place behind the curtains of power.

Within 4 years the two parties will have a third party to contend with. It will likely be moderate on social issues and lightly-conservative on fiscal issues (and absorb many Libertarians because of this). As such it will stand against the remaining conservatives in the GOP and the liberals that will control the Democratic party (which will move to the left sufficiently to absorb the Greens). We almost saw it's birth this year with Bloomberg, but by 2012 it will be toddling along and making enough noise to be a factor in that Presidential election.

Agree with posters above who are talking about *liberty.* How?

*** Reduce the power and influence of the federal government. ***

1. Do we really need a Department of Education? (I don't think so.) Drop the idea of vouchers (read: tax money to private religious schools.) It's a loser, and many states (like mine) already have it in their state constitutions that it is a no-go. Education needs to be a state and local affair.

2. Amend the constitution to require a *balanced* federal budget. End this practice of printing money to deal w/ gov't over-spending.

3. Get behind a commitment to reasonable environmentalism.

4. Retake populism from the Democrats. Stop being seen as corporate shills.

5. :bracing for the screams: Stop the anti-gay rhetoric. Many gay people have powerful reasons to support *fiscally conservative* Republican policies. Yes, it's necessary for the "religious right," but it will never be a base-building strategy. Most young people coming up have gay and bisexual friends; don't see anything wrong it; are comfortable with gayness in its various forms. They are not going to turn to a party whom they think is "talking trash" about their friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.

I think transportation infrastructure could be a good issue for Republicans - McCain opposes pork, but something needs to be done to rebuild infrastructure, so why not focus on doing it in an organized, systematic way that encourages smart growth around communities, rather than sprawl and big box stores. It supports communities, it is pro-environment, and it's easy to see the benefits. National improvements - the old whig issue of the Republicans' forebearers.

it's why Ron Paul's platform appeals to millions, and why his book is #1 on the NY Times bestseller list (May 18). It's too bad his candidacy has been decided and canned, already, by the media (including this blog).

For the Ron Paul Revolution to have a lasting impact, at least a few things have to happen:

1. New messenger. Just as the Goldwater movement required a Ronald Reagan to bring it to power, so the Ron Paul movement will eventually need someone other than Dr. Paul to bring it into the promised land. Dr. Paul is a great man, but he is too old to be a credible candidate in 2012, and he doesn't exactly have charisma.

2. Purge the nuts. The 9/11 "Truthers" and other lunatics who hang on the fringes of the Ron Paul movement scare away far more votes than they themselves will ever deliver. They are analogous to the John Birch Society of the 1960s -- a net liability to the movement.

3. Decontaminate the "Libertarian" brand -- or adopt a new moniker for the movement's overriding philosophy. As long as the Libertarian name is popularly associated with the outlook exemplified by the ignorant twerps who run Reason magazine, it's a political loser.

"But third parties are non-starters."

Sounds like a Whig bumper sticker.

That is not a law. That is the 14th amendment.

If you haven't realized it yet, contemporary Republicans consider the 14th a bunch of inconvenient gibberish they don't want or need to conform to. And would prefer repealed.

The British Conservatives are much much closer to the democrats than the republicans. A recent economist poll showed that a majority of british conservatives wanted Obama to win the presidency. David Cameron is also the first Conservative to visit america since they went into opposition, only when George Bush is a lame duck and to visit his successors.

The conservatives have been trying to position themselves as the party of the NHS, what you would call "Socialized medicine" and have promised to double the left-wing labour parties spending on the issue. They have completely abandoned tax cuts, they have become incredibly pro-gay rights and socially liberal. They oppose all the anti-terror legislation brought in by the Labour Party, much of it similar to you "PATRIOT act". They've also been courting the african american vote and have begun to accept affirmative action. All of which marks them out as closer to the democrats than to the republicans.

The labour party because of the war in iraq have been incredibly linked to the republicans, and Blair was often thought of as Bush's "poodle." Rendition flights, cosying up the Israeli Lobby and draconian anti-legislation laws have made people see them as "neoconservatives." Also, the two major policy mistakes that the Labour party have made in Britain are ID cards and abolishing the 10p rate of tax, to make way for a cut in 22% rate to 20%. These two pieces of legislation which were designed as tax cut for the middle class and to help national security. Two policy positions which place them closer to the middle class. In britain there has been some major cross dressing between the two parties old standpoints and the waters have been muddied.

I don't think american republicans can glean much hope from the Conservative parties victory. In Britain the democrats would be centre-right, like the Tories and the Republicans would be far-right extremists.

pb: "Doesn't mean the states can't legislate."

Yes, just like they legislated against interracial marriage. (Oh drats, that nasty 14th Amendment stuck its nose in where it didn't belong.)

Funny...I don't see the word "citizens" in that amendment. I only see the word "persons." Does that mean we have to treat those nasty foreigners the same way we are supposed to treat each other?

RJohnson:

Although I agree with you in your darker doubts about the pro-life bona fides of the GOP, there is a more practical reason the GOP did not go the full Schiavo route in those cases.

First and foremost it was because they got their you-know-whats handed to them in the Schiavo matter and our brave GOPs leaders are abject cowards.

Probably just as importantly, no one ever heard about those cases (for which you can blame the pro-choice media, not the GOP.)

Again, not that the GOP would have done anything anyway, but it doesn't seem to me have a damn thing to do with race.

Back to the Tories' new ideology/brand, didn't this whole thought of decentralized gov't helping to promote sustainable communities and families have a boomlet in the early '90's led by none other than the Democratic Leadership Council and none other than Bill Clinton. I believe it was called "communitarianism" and there was some kind of "manifesto." It's very attractive, but it certainly defies party labels.

"Again, not that the GOP would have done anything anyway, but it doesn't seem to me have a damn thing to do with race."

Actually, given the wording of the law, I would agree with you. It seems to be all about money. As long as the patient can pay for the care, or has insurance to cover it, the care is provided.

So I guess it would better represent the GOP position to say that they are pro-life...until it starts costing them some money.