the future of the GOP

A quick reminder, worth mentionning even if it is obvious to most of you.

In analytical terms the Republican base is composed of several different groups and thus the party is highly dependent the existence of this coalition, for no single group has the clout to make the GOP a viable party by itself ( of course some people adhere to all of these ideas)

The strength of the GOP in the past has relied on holding together (in no particular order) :

1. the deficit hawks or fiscal conservatives, these are often proponents of small government, eager to let the States, local governement and, even better, individuals themselves take control of their destinies ( they resemble a mild strain of libertarians).

2. the foreign policy hawks (aka "neocons" or neoconservatives), who were advocates of American intervention in foreign countries, as a way of maintaining American interests and domination in world affairs. Their position in the GOP is considerably less dominant than it was at the beginning of George W Bush's term. 

3. the social conservatives, who promote traditional values; they will fight for the institution of mariage, against abortion.

All three groups were dissapointed by the Bush administration and it's proving harder than ever to hold them together in a coalition.  The fiscal conservatives have gone ballistic over the cost of the Bush wars and over the biggest government expansion ever experienced under a Republican President (with the exception of Lincoln, perhaps...  if you remember the exam  I set in January 2008). The social conservatives are upset that Bush didn't/couldn't do more to implement their agenda on marriage and abortion. Each group accuses the others of having cost them the election : group 1 and 2 think that the Palin selection (which enthused group 3) is to blame for alienating independents voters. Group 1 and 3 feel that the war in Irak burnt up the party's capital and betrayed the Republican values. Group 1 resents group 2 and the national security wizz team of having endangered American liberties (Patriot Act, wiretapping...) And so forth...

Moreover, each section seems to be tugging in opposite directions and reconciliation of all these conflicting interests appears virtually impossible now.

Two main questions :

What direction will the party take and what will be the policy priorities of the GOP? 

- Will the party focus back on small government, fiscal restraint and individual liberties. Is such a shift politically desirable in the context of an economic meltdown? 

- How important will social issues be in the future of the GOP? The social conservatives themselves are starting to splinter : the younger generation is becoming more involved in environmental protection and less in fighting against gay marriage. Some evangelicals are willing to team with Obama to reduce the number of abortions and to tackle the challenges raised by climate change. 

-  Can a new GOP emerge with a platform more finely atunned to the challenges America is faced with : immigration and integration; financial turmoil due in part to reduced regulation; healthcare... For now the Democrats' answers to these questions have appealed to the voters, but the onus is now on the GOP to come up with viable policies that provide long term solutions that are congruent with the Republican ideals and values. Whether these values need to be refashioned is another question the party will have to grapple with. 

I believe that there's nothing like a stint in the opposition to stimulate policy makers and political thinkers. 

 

The subsidiary question which is related to the first is : Who will lead the Republican Party? To name but a few: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney (remember how he dropped out of the primary race for the good of party and country !), Newt Gingrich ( who led the opposition to President Clinton in Congress). But there are many others out there waiting for the chance to become the GOP standard bearer in 2012. Who do you think could take up the mantle of the party? What would it mean for the GOP?