Rebranding Republican Party: The States Rights party

[mook]

So I'm thinking about the imminent implosion of the Republican party, and I'm wondering how they can re-brand themselves into something that is actually marketable.

How about transforming it to the "States Rights" party? I realize that used to be a code word for racism, but so much has changed that it has real appeal, not just on the right.

The basic philosophy is that every federal law should be evaluated as to whether it could be better handled by a state.

Want to have the right to an abortion? Move to New York.
Want to own a machine gun? Move to Idaho.
Prefer socialized health care? Off to Massachusetts.

The primary areas the federal government would be responsible for is security, interstate pollution issues, interstate transportation and a basic social safety net. I include the safety net idea because the logistics of managing Social Security individually by every state would be a nightmare, and the current Social Security and even Medicare aren't likely to be broken up in our lifetime. I realize a lot of libertarians will cringe at that, but let's live in reality.

The NRA would revolt at first, but at some point they'd realize that most of their constituency isn't in New York or Oregon, and it ain't a bad trade off to concede a gun restriction in DC if gun laws in Texas can become even more loose.

Instead of talking about tax cuts or pro-life or gun rights, all of those issues would fall into "states rights." States should set tax policy. States should set abortion policy. States should set gun policy. If you don't like your state's particular policy, work to change it or just move. (We're a lot more mobile than we used to be.)

McCain has had no overriding theme to his campaign--this would give future Republican candidates such a theme.

As a liberal, there are a lot appealing aspects even to me about this philosophy. I'd like to see Oregon basically legalize pot. I'd like to see how Idaho does without massive federal subsidies. I'd like to see more states experiment with different forms of health care.

 

[maxiep]

How about limited government? That would be fine by me. Stay out of my business and stay out of my bedroom.

 

[Ed O]

There's no imminent implosion of the GOP. They are going to lose an election... and the Democrats are stepping into a big mess with the wheels to the car. The odds of things getting worse and the electorate switching paths in two or four years are pretty good. Especially if Obama strays too far from a Clinton-like moderate presidency.

Look... the economy is horrible. The country is at war. Things are bad. And yet the states are still very close to 50/50 in terms of who they support.

I remember in college, WAY back in 1992, after Clinton won and my philosophy professor took 5 or 10 minutes to give us a preamble of how the "torch had been passed" to the younger generation. I remember how multiple students and TAs in multiple political science classes gave the opinion that the Republican party was "dead".

There is a lot of inertia in the current system and there is a lot invested in the current makeup and slants of the existing political parties. I don't think that there's any more reason for the GOP to reorganize and try something systematically new than there has been for either party to do so in the last 50 years.

As for the "states rights" idea... it's interesting but it would contribute to a REAL (as opposed to merely on-paper) balkanization of the nation. And lumping gun ownership (which is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights) and abortion (which is founded in a "penumbra" of the actual Constitution) and health care (which hasn't even been a constitutional issue at the national level, as far as I know) all together ignores the role, I think, that has developed for the Constitution over the last 200 years. It would involve years, perhaps decades, of changing legislation and Supreme Court decisions... all while being fought against by the Democrats.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

There's no imminent implosion of the GOP. They are going to lose an election... and the Democrats are stepping into a big mess with the wheels to the car.

Ed, did they just steal the wheels? And is the mess like quicksand, or like dog poop? Or are the democrats like transformers, they have wheels but also legs? I'm not really getting the metaphor here.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

How about limited government? That would be fine by me. Stay out of my business and stay out of my bedroom.

Says the guy who voted for the Morality Police Party.

 

[MARIS61]

We already addressed this horrible idea a long, long time ago.

We call it the Civil War, but it was anything but civil.

 

[Real]

The Republicans will rebound...they'll probably begin to gain some house seats back that ordinarily wouldn't have gone to Democrats but in a year where Republicans were unpopular, and they'll go from there into 2012, where they'll have a host of candidates to choose from.

As for a much needed philosophical overhaul, I don't know where that will come from or when, if it does at all.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

The republicans need strong leadership at the top. McCain is a weak man. They need a guy who will kick ass.

 

[Ed O]

Ed, did they just steal the wheels? And is the mess like quicksand, or like dog poop? Or are the democrats like transformers, they have wheels but also legs? I'm not really getting the metaphor here.

WOAH!

What the heck?



I think that I meant "keys to the car". Meaning they, and they alone, are going to be driving the country for at least the next two years, and given the mess the country is in they might take more blame for residual issues than they deserve.

Ed O.

 

[BrianFromWA]

We already addressed this horrible idea a long, long time ago.

We call it the Civil War, but it was anything but civil.

Some call it the War of Northern Aggression. Not me, mind you, but I read that in a history book once.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The republicans need strong leadership at the top. McCain is a weak man. They need a guy who will kick ass.

I wish I knew how to get into politics. I don't have enough rich friends.

Whaddaya think? A guys who's been in the military, been in a union, been on WIC, graduated from an Academy, churchgoer, small business owner, community service award winner, and I can usually speak without stuttering?

If I put a (D) after my name, do I have a shot?

(I'm nowhere near as good-looking as Obama is, though. OTOH, I don't need 150k in clothes, either).

Seattle politics are so f'ed up. The partisanship around here prevents idiots from being voted out (and yes, I'm looking at you, Greg Nickels and Ron Sims. Enjoy that ghost 30M when the Sonics don't come back. And you, Christine "the Blamer" Gregoire)

</rant>

 

[mook]

As for the "states rights" idea... it's interesting but it would contribute to a REAL (as opposed to merely on-paper) balkanization of the nation.

But that balkanization is already happening. People are already moving to places that more closely conform to their own lifestyles and politics. A "states rights" party would merely be reflecting this fact of life.

And lumping gun ownership (which is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights) and abortion (which is founded in a "penumbra" of the actual Constitution) and health care (which hasn't even been a constitutional issue at the national level, as far as I know) all together ignores the role, I think, that has developed for the Constitution over the last 200 years. It would involve years, perhaps decades, of changing legislation and Supreme Court decisions... all while being fought against by the Democrats.

The constitution has evolved a lot over the last 200 years. I'm not suggesting Republicans throw it out completely in a weekend. It's a good thing that it would involve years, perhaps decades of changing legislation in the name of the goal of "states rights". That's what makes it an over-arching principle.

What's the current Republican principle? Cut taxes, cut regulations, impose social order. That just doesn't sell as much anymore, particularly to younger generations. Taxes aren't high like they were in the early 1980's. Regulations don't seem burdensome enough to many. Republicans are on the losing side long-term on nationwide bans on abortion or gay marriage (and Democrats have co-opted "tough on crime").

"Put the power in the hands of your own state, and not in the hands of faceless feds." That, to me, is a compelling, positive argument that's easy to communicate.

 

[Denny Crane]

The republican party is in no worse shape than the Democrats were when Clinton was elected. Basically, they will rebound nicely if they come up with a candidate with some charisma. There's the issue of the actual good republicans all being too old at this point (Jack Kemp, for one) and there not being much in the way of leadership among the neo-con generation. The republicans do have strength in guys like Rudy and Jindal, but it's more likely that someone (like Clinton) comes from unknown status to become the required inspirational figure.

That said, Ed O is on the mark. Do not confuse winning an election when the republican brand is damaged with governing. The proof will be in 4 years when the people reject the Democrats because they're likely to either be overzealous (as in 1994) or "do nothing" as they are now.

 

[mook]

How about limited government? That would be fine by me. Stay out of my business and stay out of my bedroom.

I think that's the other direction Republicans can go. Problem is that it would strip away a huge part of their religious base, making them unelectable. There just aren't enough libertarian-leaning Democrats that they could peal away to pick up the difference.

There's too big a market of people who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage to ignore. One of the two parties has to go after them, and we all know it won't be the Democrats.

 

[Dumpy]

That said, Ed O is on the mark. Do not confuse winning an election when the republican brand is damaged with governing. The proof will be in 4 years when the people reject the Democrats because they're likely to either be overzealous (as in 1994) or "do nothing" as they are now.

I vote for the former.

everything is cyclical, and there is always backlash.