Future of the Republican Party

Brussels Sprout

The Republican base is shrinking and has been for a long time. The archetypal Republican voter is white, male and middle aged or older. This is a shrinking demographic in the states. The US census bureau has estimates that non hispanic whites will be in the minority for the first time shortly after 2040.

Latinos will be responsible for much of this shift in demographics. In December 2010 a study showed that 65% of latinos are registered as Democrats as opposed to 22% who are registered as Republicans.

Clearly the Republicans need to change their policies, in particular their anti-immigration platform, in order to gain more support amongst Latinos. When is this likely to happen and when it does, is it likely to infuriate the current base? Will we likely see more parties in the future as fractures take place between groups who are too ideologically divided to stay within one party?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't wish to derail the thread before it's even begun but isn't that taking things to the extreme. Are they basically saying that they'd leave any migrant workers in (who don't fall under the categories set out above)? Surely if that were the case the US would be swamped with waves of migrants from Latin America that would make the current numbers entering the country seem like a trickle.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Isn't this a little bit naive? South Park depicted this scenario really well in an episode called "Goobacks" where people from the future came back to the present day in order to find work in massive numbers. Pretty soon they had undercut all of the local workers leading to mass unemployment and social unrest.

If the same thing were to happen with migrants from developing countries I can't see how things would end any differently.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Mainstream America or any other country for that matter isn't going to tolerate freeflow immigration.

Imagine Latin, chinese and indian workers being brought in in the tens of thousands by companies to manufacture on the cheap, completely displacing the local work force and driving wages down to 3rd world levels.

Great for corporations, not so much so for the indiginous pop. I'm actually fairly pro immigration, but there needs to be some kind of a balance.

Like so many other topics the Libertarian position on this issue is comical and entirely without nuance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm against the Republican persecution of immigrants already present in America. That doesn't mean that I think there should be free movement of people. There is a middle ground between these two extremes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If we were talking about a small number of illegal immigrants then that analogy would hold up. However there's an estimated 10-12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Trying to remove them now is an act as futile as the War on Drugs, especially when the border is as porous as it is.

A more realistic plan of attack would be:

1. Secure the border
2. Grant an amnesty to all illegals within some criteria (criminal record, health etc)
3. Then start clamping down on illegals

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Amnesties are pointless whilst the border is still so open.

The clamping down wouldn't be any different but it might have some ultimate chance of actually working.

I'm not a Latino voter living in America though. The OP was about them and their perceptions but we've got side-tracked onto my personal opinions on illegal immigration in America.

matthew8

I think what may happen is that republicans will (as they are) succeed on a local level by running candidates like Rubio and Sandoval in the hispanic areas and moderates in the northeast (like the way dems run moderates in the great plains) but nationally it's looking bleak. Eventually they'll see sense though and change their rhetoric regarding hispanics. It's looking good for the republicans in the senate and the house, but the lack of a national identity kills them when going for the presidency. Best hope is a minority candidate or someone very charismatic in 2016. However I think they'll nominate Chris Christie, who, though lots of conservatives (including me) love him for telling it as it is, is not very electable. Brian Sandoval, Susana Martinez and Marco Rubio are 3 hispanics to watch for the republicans. Unless they legalise drugs or something republicans will continue to do poorly with blacks. They have no credible black candidate. The last black man who ran for pres as a republican is a famous birther, Alan Keyes.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Good question. I don't necessarily think they shouldn't. I'm just not sure it will work on a practical level.

Also, the whole idea of bringing in people from poorer places to work for practically nothing in order to benefit the well off has been tried already, in the U.S. and elsewhere. I believe they called it slavery.

Of course, Libertarians don't believe in the minimum wage, so that's not really an issue for you guys.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Carcharodon

matthew8 wrote: »

Unless they legalise drugs or something republicans will continue to do poorly with blacks.

Is that supposed to be serious ? Where to begin...

matthew8

Carcharodon wrote: »

Is that supposed to be serious ? Where to begin...

The republicans need some big policy change if they're going to get the black vote. Blacks always voted republican from the time of Lincoln until Kennedy because the republicans ended slavery. Then they completely changed when the democrats brought in civil rights.

Denerick

Carcharodon wrote: »

Is that supposed to be serious ? Where to begin...

He has a point.

American black males are probably the most criminalised group of people in any country in the world. While the drug war continue to rage in US cities and as gangs continue to assert their dominance over black communities, and the senseless killings and violence that is always associated with drug trafficking and its sale denude black America of much of its basic vitality, and as white parents in privileged suburbs clamour for more drug prohibitions in order to protect their 2.3 white children...

In short, the prohibition of drugs is a fiasco and disproportionately damages African Americans. So many black kids growing up in ****ty neighbourhoods drift into a life of crime, made all the more inevitable by the constant presence of a multi billion pound industry outside their front doorstep - often the only industry they are ever likely to get a job in (Once you add sub standard public education you get a truly toxic mix).

America might have a black President but it is still a fundamentally racist country.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Okay.... here's the thing... here's the crazy, crazy thing.

A few years ago I remember sitting with the Mrs in a restaurant and making an argument for the free flow of people anywhere in the world.

I'm a globalist. I would love a true global democracy and true equal opportunity for everyone no matter where they are born. So I find it strange to be on the other side of this argument from you.

With that said, have you thought at all about what you are saying? The population of India is over 1.21 BILLION... population of China is 1.338 billion.

The population of the US is 300 million? Today you open the gates.
Tomorrow, 0.2 from India and 0.3 from China arrive. Now the US has 300 million US citizens and 500 million indian and chinese workers. Just stop and think for the moment of the total societal upheaval that this kind of shift would cause. So yes, while in PRINCIPLE I believe in the free movement of peoples, in PRACTICE the way you are proposing, it's comical.

However... this does NOT mean that I agree with the republican party's stance, which is almost as extreme as yours. Wow... I can't believe it. Your stance is more extreme and less nuanced than that of the GOP.... golly.

I have a better idea. Instead of opening all the borders and causing all this sudden chaos... why not a graded global corporate tax and minimum wage standardised to quality of life?

No more tax havens for corps to run to. No more holding people to ransom by threatening to shift jobs to lower tax countries.

Let it be graded. Let small family owned businesses pay little to no tax, to help them grow and employ people. As profits and income goes up, so does tax. So that the big corps are paying 50-55% on their profits. People still get rich, still get obscenely rich. But maybe rather than 1% of the worlds pop controlling 95% of the worlds resources, maybe they control 60 or 70% and there's a little more to go around for everyone else.

But I'm sure this screams lunacy to you, which is ironic, of course.

Carcharodon

matthew8 wrote: »

The republicans need some big policy change if they're going to get the black vote. Blacks always voted republican from the time of Lincoln until Kennedy because the republicans ended slavery. Then they completely changed when the democrats brought in civil rights.

Yes, this may be true but do you honestly believe legalizing drugs would do this ? It seems like a rather simplistic narrowed minded ill-informed view of things.

matthew8

Carcharodon wrote: »

Yes, this may be true but do you honestly believe legalizing drugs would do this ? It seems like a rather simplistic narrowed minded ill-informed view of things.

Black people vote quite simplistically generally. I don't know if legalising drugs would do it, but if there's any other step I would take to give blacks more parity in society (and I don't count affirmative action) it would be to legalise drugs. It may not trigger a massive shift, but if that became the republican position and they did it somewhere like Michigan then I think they would earn enough respect from blacks to get more than 10% (and it wasn't Obama that made it 10%, it's been like that since Clinton). Republicans haven't copped onto this yet, most of them probably think that running Herman Cain or Alan Keyes would magically earn republicans the votes of blacks.

Carcharodon

Denerick wrote: »

He has a point.

American black males are probably the most criminalised group of people in any country in the world. While the drug war continue to rage in US cities and as gangs continue to assert their dominance over black communities, and the senseless killings and violence that is always associated with drug trafficking and its sale denude black America of much of its basic vitality, and as white parents in privileged suburbs clamour for more drug prohibitions in order to protect their 2.3 white children...

In short, the prohibition of drugs is a fiasco and disproportionately damages African Americans. So many black kids growing up in ****ty neighbourhoods drift into a life of crime, made all the more inevitable by the constant presence of a multi billion pound industry outside their front doorstep - often the only industry they are ever likely to get a job in (Once you add sub standard public education you get a truly toxic mix).

America might have a black President but it is still a fundamentally racist country.

I agree 100% but that was not the point he was making I think.
It sickens me going to these areas and viewing what society has created.
The poster has to realize that people don't do drugs because they are black but because they are poor and uneducated. People are naive to think that there are not major drug problems in white communities across the country.
Drug usage is higher amongst white people and that is not even including over the counter drugs.

Carcharodon

matthew8 wrote: »

Black people vote quite simplistically generally. I don't know if legalising drugs would do it, but if there's any other step I would take to give blacks more parity in society (and I don't count affirmative action) it would be to legalise drugs. It may not trigger a massive shift, but if that became the republican position and they did it somewhere like Michigan then I think they would earn enough respect from blacks to get more than 10% (and it wasn't Obama that made it 10%, it's been like that since Clinton). Republicans haven't copped onto this yet, most of them probably think that running Herman Cain or Alan Keyes would magically earn republicans the votes of blacks.

Just as much as drugs play an important role in black communities, they are also very much despised of in these communities as these people realize the damage that has been caused by these drugs. So unless the Republicans want the vote of the strung out junkie on the corner then they may have a hard time convincing others.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

Black people vote quite simplistically generally. I don't know if legalising drugs would do it, but if there's any other step I would take to give blacks more parity in society (and I don't count affirmative action) it would be to legalise drugs. It may not trigger a massive shift, but if that became the republican position and they did it somewhere like Michigan then I think they would earn enough respect from blacks to get more than 10% (and it wasn't Obama that made it 10%, it's been like that since Clinton). Republicans haven't copped onto this yet, most of them probably think that running Herman Cain or Alan Keyes would magically earn republicans the votes of blacks.

There's such an awful bang of the white mans burden off your posting..

matthew8

Carcharodon wrote: »

Just as much as drugs play an important role in black communities, they are also very much despised of in these communities as these people realize the damage that has been caused by these drugs. So unless the Republicans want the vote of the strung out junkie on the corner then they may have a hard time convincing others.

I think the laws against drugs are more despised because they are what put a lot of black people in jail and legalising drugs would essentially be freeing a large part of the black population.

RichieC wrote: »

There's such an awful bang of the white mans burden off your posting..

What's the white man's burden? I'm just discussing how the republicans can get minority appeal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Even in 2004 the GNP/capita differential between Poland and Ireland would be paltry in comparison with the differential between America and countries in developing nations in Africa and Asia. Every year millions of people from these countries pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers to try and get themselves into developed countries.
If the US opened their borders then all of these people would simply buy plane tickets to there instead. Not only that, but a far greater number would now join them since all of the risk would be removed.

I'm not defending the 500 million figure as that does seem a bit on the high side but even a figure of 100 million over the course of 10 years would put tremendous pressure on public services and cause great social problems.

Channel Zero

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

...but even a figure of 100 million over the course of 10 years would put tremendous pressure on public services and cause great social problems.

Well, if it was a Libertarian administration, probably there would be very little in the way of public services to put pressure on..

Brussels Sprout

The more I think about it, the more I think that we can look at this with a thermodynamics hat on.

If we have two boxes filled with gas of different pressures and we open up a wall separating them, then material will flow from the high pressure box to the low pressure box until the pressures are in equilibrium.

If we have a country with a high standard of living and an open border then using this analogy we can say that people will migrate from countries with lower standards of living until such time either equilibrium will be reached or, more than likely, that the difference in standards of living no longer makes up for the disadvantages of migrating there (cultural, family and historical ties to the homeland etc).

The only reason why the Polish migration to Ireland peaked was because the bubble burst and the abundance of well paying jobs that didn't even require the person to speak english evaporated.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

What's the white man's burden? I'm just discussing how the republicans can get minority appeal.

I meant this:

One view proposes that white people have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world economically and socially.

the term is lifted from a satirical poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. 1899

Carcharodon

matthew8 wrote: »

I think the laws against drugs are more despised because they are what put a lot of black people in jail and legalising drugs would essentially be freeing a large part of the black population.

Blacks make up 13% of the general population and 60% of the prison population and 25% of them live below the poverty level.
Republicans may be better served trying to tackle the poverty situation and improving education amongst other things in these communities.
I get your point but it will never happen for so many reasons, the prison industry wouldn't let it happen either.

Brussels Sprout

Carcharodon wrote: »

Blacks make up 13% of the general population and 60% of the prison population and 90% of them live below the poverty level.

No way that's true. 50% would be high!

sarumite

Denerick wrote: »

He has a point.

American black males are probably the most criminalised group of people in any country in the world. While the drug war continue to rage in US cities and as gangs continue to assert their dominance over black communities, and the senseless killings and violence that is always associated with drug trafficking and its sale denude black America of much of its basic vitality, and as white parents in privileged suburbs clamour for more drug prohibitions in order to protect their 2.3 white children...

In short, the prohibition of drugs is a fiasco and disproportionately damages African Americans. So many black kids growing up in ****ty neighbourhoods drift into a life of crime, made all the more inevitable by the constant presence of a multi billion pound industry outside their front doorstep - often the only industry they are ever likely to get a job in (Once you add sub standard public education you get a truly toxic mix).

America might have a black President but it is still a fundamentally racist country.

Not sure if I totally agree with this final part. The problem is more a socio-demographic problem nowadays than a ethnic problem. The problem for many black communities is that they are poor and not that they are black. Many are poor because of a legacy of racism, however today the issue facing poor black people are the same issue facing poor white people. Race may have created the problems in the past, however in many places it is not what is causing the problems today.

Carcharodon

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

No way that's true. 50% would be high!

Exaggerating for effect but its high, in the 30s ish but the majority of these communities will be poor, while not below the poverty line, still very vulnerable.
There is also a big gap in mean incomes between backs and white.

Edited it.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just to clarify - do you really believe that if all immigration restrictions were removed that there wouldn't be a massive influx of Indians, Chinese, and other groups from such countries? I find it hard to believe you could possibly be so naive?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

I actually agree with you. I've always been in favour of mass immigration into rich world countries if for no other reason than because our aging populations will render our welfare state's impossible to sustain without a mass influx of young workers - who happen to hail from less developed parts of the world.

The effects this would have on the cultural complexion of a nation doesn't bother me as I find nationalism to be an odious ideology and the concept of 'one nation' cultures are similarly reprehensible. Furthermore the most interesting countries in the world are those which have a myriad of cultures, religions, languages etc. (Certain parts of America, Brazil, India etc.)

These are also some of the most dynamic and innovative parts of the world. China is rapidly becoming richer but it is insufferably grey and miserable; it is a capitalism of bureaucrats and I truly believe it will be revealed for the messy human tragedy it is in the next twenty years or so. I sincerely doubt it will ever be a superpower the way the United States has been a superpower - it will never command such supreme political, economic and military power as the United States did in the 90s and the early noughties. Somewhere along the way its gigantic property bubble, coupled with rising civil discontent, and an Orwellian State infrastructure will combine to leave the country in a permanent recessionary spiral.

Sorry for the tangent by the way.

I just wanted to clarify if you really believe there wouldn't be a mass influx of immigrants if policies were relaxed.

InTheTrees

sarumite wrote: »

The problem is more a socio-demographic problem nowadays than a ethnic problem. The problem for many black communities is that they are poor and not that they are black. Many are poor because of a legacy of racism, however today the issue facing poor black people are the same issue facing poor white people. Race may have created the problems in the past, however in many places it is not what is causing the problems today.

The US is deeply racially divided.

You come across it all the time.

The conservatives like to pretend that Racism magically ended with the civil rights act but thats nonsense.

And its really not confined to the poor either. Thats another attempt to deflect the issue.

A rich african american is just as likely to be pulled over in his Bentley and harassed by the cops as a poor man.

southsiderosie

I don't think that Latinos will go running to Republicans if they moderate their position on immigration, just as I don't think that blacks will go running to the GOP if they relax their position on sentencing laws (which is really the issue here).

The broader issue between these communities and the GOP is the way that they are scapegoated and demonized every election season, and the party sits by and lets it happen. Blacks are painted as welfare queens and criminals, and Latinos as fence-hopping, wetback spongers. Bill Clinton gained a lot of truck with centrist voters by publicly slapping down the more left-wing radical branch of his party in 1992, but I have yet to see anyone in the GOP establishment slapping down the far-right of the party. Perhaps if Romney knew his on mind and had a bit of a backbone, he would clearly distance himself more from the far-right elements of his party, thus gaining the confidence of more centrist voters, but oh well.

The irony here is that blacks and Latinos are actually more socially conservative than urban whites (the other pillar of the Democratic party). Blacks have the highest rate of church attendance in the US, and many come out of a Southern Baptist/evangelical tradition. In addition, many inner-city minorities strongly support the charter school/voucher movement, a pet project of economic conservatives. But they are really turned off by the rhetoric coming from both GOP elected officials, and the GOP publicity machine/right wing media. You will not hear a more vocal opponent of inner-city, welfare-dependent-single-parent culture than a late-middle aged black man - this generation should be a natural fit for conservatives, but they, having lived through de-segregation, are more attuned to racist dog-whistling within the GOP than any other demographic as well, and have no time for it.

Sindri

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The Republican base is shrinking and has been for a long time. The archetypal Republican voter is white, male and middle aged or older. This is a shrinking demographic in the states. The US census bureau has estimates that non hispanic whites will be in the minority for the first time shortly after 2040.

Latinos will be responsible for much of this shift in demographics. In December 2010 a study showed that 65% of latinos are registered as Democrats as opposed to 22% who are registered as Republicans.

Clearly the Republicans need to change their policies, in particular their anti-immigration platform, in order to gain more support amongst Latinos. When is this likely to happen and when it does, is it likely to infuriate the current base? Will we likely see more parties in the future as fractures take place between groups who are too ideologically divided to stay within one party?

The Republican party is a bit of a mess. It's an uneasy triumvirate between fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and Libertarians. These people would find it difficult to stand alone against the Democrats. They will though for the foreseeable future be in an alliance. Many conservatives I think lament the loss of their party particularly to the further right though.

The Republican party though has a monopoly on the quintessential American phenomenon of "the political and cultural defence of civil liberties" mainly from government.

That is an intrinsic part of the culture and make up of America, freedom, fighting for freedom and demonstrating, and that's why so much of the Republican rhetoric is centred around it. It's popular.

America, like most countries, (read as all) is conservative after you scratch the surface.
I think many Latinos and blacks are fairly conservative, (partially because of religious influences and partially because curiously enough the Republicans cater to the working class, also due to those peculiar cultural reasons), they just don't feel a kinship with the Republicans as Rosie has alluded to. As the Republicans cop on and as Latinos and to a lesser extent blacks integrate more into American society they will turn to the Republicans (which I feel will have changed to accommodate them and vice-versa).

MadYaker

The tea party movement seems to have turned the republican party into a bit of a joke. The policies of people like Michelle Bachmann are laughable.

I read this quote somewhere on boards: "While its not true all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives".