The GOP is in trouble: they don't have African-Americans, they don't have Latinos, they have very few Jews and they are losing young white people.

Clearly, we need to pick up our recruitment or we are going to be a party out of power on a national level on a permanent basis. We cannot keep playing to an ever shrinking base.

Michael Steele faces an uphill battle. I wish him luck, as he will need it.

The Catholic bishops have committed ecclesiastical suidicde by promoting illegal immigration. The immigrant vote sways more and more in favor of government policies hostile to the Church.

I've been saying this since before November.

Yes, there are cycles in politics - but the cycles occur within much broader historical epochs. There are big cycles and little cycles within them. It is the same as the economy - there are booms and busts within larger cycles of upswings and downswings.

I know why people are shocked by all of this; in a world where technology and culture seem to change every 5 minutes, it seems likely that anything that doesn't go along with it, probably won't. But the political machines are no exception. The GOP is where the Southern Democrats were in 1860.

That's why it is important to build a pro-life, pro-family wing of the Democratic party (or at least a viable third party), one that embraces progressive - and I might add, more fully Catholic - economic policies and foreign policies while retaining the important positions on social issues.

Why? Because the economy, foreign policy, and a couple of other issues dominate the people's priority list. Social issues do not. That is a good thing, because a lot of people aren't fully with us on those issues. With the right position on the economy, though, they don't need to be - they'll put us in power regardless of what we think about abortion, gay marriage, and the rest.

I think the American people are done with plutocracy and imperialism. They're done with policies based on the belief that when you grant nearly unlimited wealth and power to a handful of billionares, everyone ends up benefiting. Like or not this is what the GOP is known for and remembered for. And they're done with the Project for a New American Century. It's over.

The Republican Party will be back once the children learn that Santa Claus lied and Socialism doesn't work.

Some of this same rhetoric (that the Republican Party is dead) was thrown around during the mid 70's after Watergate but Jimmy "stagflation" Carter opened the door for Ronald Reagan.

Demographics trump cycles. And, the evolving demographics in the U.S. do not bode well for protectors of the status quo, and even worse for any group that longs to turn back the clock. Not going to happen. The good old days were good only for one race and one gender.

The Republican Party needs to focus its efforts on 2048. First, the "Party of No" will need to divest itself of its current albatross-like base. The numbers of easily fooled wedge-issue (babies, guns, gays and God) voters are continuing to diminish and will never again sustain a viable national political party. Starting in 2008, Americans will never again vote against their own best economic interests.

At the same time, the GOP needs to truly reinvent itself by embracing an evolving ideology/agenda that is actually responsive to the needs of a highly diverse and constantly changing society. By 2050, non-Hispanic whites will represent less than 50% of the population. Conservatism is not (never has been) the "best for the American people" ideology.

Most importantly, the GOP needs to genuinely value and respect ALL the people in American society. In other words, the GOP needs to become something entirely different than it is today. Or, rest in peace.

The Republicans cannot try to be "me too" carbon copies of the Democrats, it won't work. But they cannot continue in the present mode. They need to offer people in the middle something the Democrats don't offer. What though?

Perhaps the old, classical conservative values of freedom, personal responsibility, etc. Good example: the "War on Drugs." I am not advocating everyone becoming a pot head, but this business of throwing people in jail for possession of small amounts of Marijuana is stupid. It ruins people's lives and costs billions of dollars. We have criminalized a medical problem in many cases. We need to rethink what we are doing, as it is not working.

Also, the GOP should stand up for private enterprise, but be very hard on corporate crooks. Honesty is a must.

Obama is not the answer: he is a Socialist, and it pains me to see him nationalizing industry after industry. Of course, the GOP paved the road for him with their gross incompetence over the past 8 years.

Time to reorganize and to think for a change. Otherwise, we will soon be a permanent minority party consisting of elderly Evangelicals who live in the Deep South and drive Buicks.

All this caterwauling over the impending demise of the Republican party is much ado about NOTHING. The American people are as reliable as a Swiss watch. Give them time, and they always come back to voting with their wallet.

The fact that the now in control ultra-left wing of the Democratic party has a chance to fulfill a socialist wish list that has been bandied about since the late 1960's notwithstanding, they will overreach. They ALWAYS overreach, Democrat or Republican. Once you hear talk of a "permanent majority" you can start playing the funeral dirge. The reality is this (and will always be thus), people have an ingrained desire to raise their standard of living. Some because they are greedy. Many more because they want to help others OF THEIR CHOOSING, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S!

A socialist system will NEVER work in this country; it is against our DNA. We were raised with the ideals that if you work hard and play by the rules, you would ultimately be successful. While we may all have a different definition of "success," it is, in the end, that which allows us to live our lives the way we wish in a level of comfort that suits us. For me, it is not about the money, it is what I am blessed to do with it. I have 6 children (so far), and put all my children through Catholic school with one away at college. Make no mistake, they have all been taught from their earliest days that hard work is the secret to success. Everything we have has been earned And the government has no right to punitively tax me to care for others who are not willing to even attempt to fend for themselves. My charitable dollars go to my Parish, which can do much more good than the Socialist Obama.

And if I have offended anyone, I deeply apologize. These are my personal views, but there are seven others in my immediate family who all feel the same way.

Blessings.

If Republicans ever want to try and win the college vote, they'll need to stop letting Dick Cheney run around and promote torture like it's the only thing Republicans care about. Not only is it against Church teaching, but I know moderates who swung left over the issue this past cycle.

Great point, Donato.

Did anyone notice anything about the Republican Convention last summer? It was so so so WHITE. I'm white myself, so don't go accusing me of reverse racism or anything ... but it was really striking. Every time they showed the crowds, I kept looking for a person of color.

I work with teenagers. Trust me: the kids today are so much more global than we ever were (or are), probably due to technology. Many of them have grown up with lots of kids of other ethnicities ... they're used to a diverse population. Given that, young people are not going to go rushing to join the party that looks like the audience of the Lawrence Welk Show (as someone once aptly observed).

Not that there's anything wrong with Lawrence Welk ... but you get my point.

Joe,

This is something that I have been saying for sometime now both here and in other blogs. I think that it is time for the pro-life movement to jump ship and join the Democrats. Unfortuantely too many pro-lifers can't bring themselves to switch parties, they would rather go down with the Republican ship then swim to the Democratic one. I'm afraid that as the Republican brand continues to sink, the pro-life will sink with them as well.

Stuart, you are wrong. The Democrats DON'T WANT anti abortion people. Republicans have had an anti-abortion plank in the platform since 1980 ! I will never vote for anyone like Obama, who has been responsible, singularly responsible, for more abortions because of his personal choices since he was sworn in ! (Mexico City policy and all)They think we are primitive (You ever heard of "pro-choice?") Obama won because of three things:

1. Tired of Pres Bush and Congress (which governed like the democrats they dumped in 1994!)

2. Economy tanked right after Repub Convention (when McCain was up 48-45%)

3. MCCain ran a lousy campaign (recall that childish 'return to Washington to help handle the economy' stunt)

Many many Conservatives STAYED HOME! I'm positive. We can take many many Congressional seats back in 2010, and get a candidate who can debate and BELIEVES in what he or she is saying in 2012!! NO more McCains. We can win in 2010 and get rid of this faker, radical president, Obama in 2012. No one ever heard of Barack Obama in 2004! The more Obama wrecks the economy and appoints radical U S Supreme Court judges and supports a House and Senate that wants to tax you to death, the better and the quicker we will win. Dont buy Stuarts solution!

I appreciate everyone's comments. Thank you!


Hi Mark,

There was talk about the death of the GOP after Watergate, but that was because of the PR, not the change in demographics. Politics are indeed cyclical, but demographics are not. Unless the GOP can rope in voters beyond its base, the party is in trouble.


And...


I think there's an even more ominous voting/population trend on the horizon (I forgot to mention it in my original post): Once we reach the point where the majority of active voters are dependent on the government for their survival, we're done. If the children need their mommy state to survive, they'll always vote to protect her (they'll "vote with their wallets," in other words).


This would be an attractive message, but the GOP doesn't have anyone to plausibly deliver it.


Dan,

It sounds like you're suggesting the Republicans need a candidate who better appeals to their hardcore base... the same base that's shrinking relative to the general population (again, the demographics). Given the numbers, that's a recipe for electoral extinction.

Dan,

This is not about Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. This is about the future of the Republican party and where it is headed. Your analysis of why McCain lost is pretty accurate, however I disagree with the part that says that conservatives stayed home on election day.

Time is going to tell whether Obama is sucessful or not. He is riding a high tide of popularity right now and it seems that everything is going his way. However, eventually something will happen down the way and his halo will be tarnished. But I will say this: if by 2012 the economy improves and there are no major foreign crisis (like a second Korean War), and the Republicans continue with their in-fighting, then I think Obama should have no problem getting re-elected.

about the Republican Party? I have been a lifelong Republican and have never voted for a Democrat but I am averse to getting all bent out of shape because the Republican party vanishes from the political landscape.

I have faith in man's natural inclination as a creature of God to live in freedom. If this inclination is frustrated within the currently-formed USA, then people will look for it elsewhere. This is what created the USA in the first place. If there arises a Party whose principles are ones that promote maximum individual freedom and personal responsibility for oneself and one's community (note that I say personal responsibility and not governmental), that Party will eventually govern. The current mob in D.C. does not govern according to these principles and will not last over the long run.

Regarding the GOP base. No doubt the heat of the immigration issue hurt the GOP. Too many thoughtless soundbites. But if one looks at the Exit polls of theGOP primary voters they were divived on the issue of immigation. It was not like th3e base is 80 percent hardliners in other words. Also please note that McCain got the nod which must mean something

I think we the gop can get a large part of the hispanic vote but we must be smart about it. Needless to say they are not happy right now with Obama and many are wondering on immigration reform if they indeed got the shaft. Something I predicted would happen last year

T"he Catholic bishops have committed ecclesiastical suidicde by promoting illegal immigration. The immigrant vote sways more and more in favor of government policies hostile to the Church."

GR that does not have to the way it is

FOr those that think GOP Republicans can't not get the Hispanic vote I recommend this Study by Richard Nadler(who sadly passed away a couple of weeks ago) of the American Majority campaign

Again we see on the ground things are a tad more complex

http://www.amermaj.com/Border_Web.pdf

It is some length but it shows with a little common sense that the GOP can get significant hispanic vote. In fact before 2006 we saw this trend. Of course one of the first things to realize is not all Hispancis are all alike and that Hispanic includes about 10 different sub groups. We need to be getting more sophisticated on this

GR:

If it was not for immigration (be it legal or illegal), the Catholic Church in the U.S. would not be what it is today. Immigration is not our death, it is our life's blood.

I, with all due respect, think this is overblown. Anytime you have a Presidential election outcome where the difference between the two candidates is greater than five percent, you're going to have demographics that look bad for the losing party.

The problem with the GOP in 2008 was John McCain's lukewarm, half-hearted candidacy that alienated the conservative base of the GOP (many of whom didn't vote or voted third party) and at the same time failed miserably in its attempt to attract Democrat moderates. The result was a landslide defeat, which came as a surprise to few other than McCain. The fact that the McCain's uninspiring candidacy was unappealing to young voters, in comparison to Obama's “Hope and Change”, well is anyone surprised by that?

I've said this earlier this week, and I'll say it again. The GOP should avoid identity politics and get back the basics of explaining why conservatism is better than liberalism, speaking positively about how the virtues of hard work, dedication to family, and self-reliance can make America better than it is today. Forgive me for repeating myself, but those seeking the GOP nomination for President in 2012 would do well to go back and listen to Reagan's inaugural address or his 1980 GOP acceptance speech. The message is timeless, and it works. It's just going to take a Republican candidate with the brains to figure it out.

Stuart-
If you do not appreciate the distinction between legal and illegal immigration - a distinction our immigrant Catholic forebears honored often a great sacrifice - and if you are proud of what the Catholic Church in the United States is today, with its attrition and neglect of the sacraments and moral decay and tendency to ignore and even hold in contempt the Magisterium, you are part of the problem. But be of good cheer. If you are satisifed with "what the Catholic Church is today" you might qualify for an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame, or be invited to speak at Georgetown University with the name of Jesus hid from public view.

Honest Catholic immigrants of the past brought to these shores a vision of the Heavenly City which many of their descendants have replaced with a suburb.

"I think there's an even more ominous voting/population trend on the horizon (I forgot to mention it in my original post): Once we reach the point where the majority of active voters are dependent on the government for their survival, we're done." - Brian

Very good point.

I'd like to make the point, however, that not all demographics are created equal. While blacks almost always vote Democrat over 90% of the time, I really think it's very presumptuous to believe that Hispanics and particularly Asians can be so easily pigeonholed. Many Asians are Evangelicals who were willing to give Obama a chance to prove that he was not as "pro-abortion" as Conservatives claimed. They now know that he is the most pro-abortion President in our History and will probably not make that mistake again in 2012.

With each passing generation, ethnic groups tend to become more educated and assimilated into the American lifestyle, thus, distancing themselves from "needing" the empty promises of the left. People "pressing 2 for Spanish" today will raise children who will not be as likely to be "punching D for Democrat" in the future.

"Gallup shows Obama getting only 55 percent approval on his handling of the economy (down from 59 percent in February) and finds that only 45 percent approve of his handling of federal spending while 46 percent approve of his treatment of the budget deficit" - from The Hill

I don't see how Obama bankrupting America and paving the way for a nuclear attack on Israel is going to be taken out on the Republicans in the future.

Andrew, I think there is an aspect of the Catholic notion of the "common good" that you're missing. You (along with many people) seem to have this attitude that success if simply about hard work, and those in need are only in need because they are lazy.

Sure there are lazy people out there, but lots of people work very hard and don't get to experience success. Not everyone starts on the same playing field -- they don't have the same parenting, the same opportunities, the same talents, the same abilities. A kid born to a single parent in the inner city of Chicago simply doesn't have nearly the chance for "success" as a kid like yours. To assume that your success - as hard won as it may be - is only because of hard work is blind in my view.

It's great that you give to your parish -- that's an obligation of every Catholic. But your money is not really yours -- it's God's, and hopefully you're docile to the way he wants you to spread it around so that all people receive those goods of the earth that are meant for them by virtue of being human (Catholic social teaching). The government, with proper checks and balances and limitations, can use some of our collective dollars for the common good and it's not an evil.

Not to be harsh, but I do get annoyed when I encounter Christians with this overly individualistic, "I am not my brother's keeper" and "my money is mine" attitude. Can you imagine the early Christians in Acts with this view?? Hard work is admirable and part of the American dream, but it's not the highest value, and not even a Christian virtue.

Unfortuantely , GR, you are missing my point. If you studied the history of the Catholic Church in America (as I have), then you will notice how each wave of immigrants beginning with the Irish in the 1840s down to the Latinos and Asians of today have each made a significant contribution to the development of Catholicism in United States. That is what I meant.

I also resent your characterization of me and my comment about the state of the Catholic Church today.

Y'know, I don't much stock in statistics. Everyone knows that 64 % of all statistics are just made up to support an ideological argument. And 73% of the people know that statistics based upon poll questions can be manipulated for ideology ("Which option better describes you 1. I am a democrat or 2. I like to eat puppies raw?").

Having said that, looking at history since World War II, you see a general conservative trend, particularly in the executive branch (what you actually see is a balancing trend with a Democratic Congress and Republican President or vice-versa). But, let's look at the history. There have been 4 democratic presidents since the end of World War II (I'm not counting Harry Truman since he was president during that conflict). JFK and Richard Nixon were in the closest election in history. Both candidates were largely indistinguishable from each other. And JFK may have a D after his name, but he a thorough going conservative. He was pro- free markets, pro tax cuts, and a staunch anti-communist (Ich bin ein Berliner!). The Democratic party of today would bee no home to JFK. Lyndon Johnson wins based largely on the Kennedy Mystique, and working as a successor to Camelot. 1968 rolls around and Richard Nixon wins. In '72, he wins in the biggest landslide since Geoorge Washington was elected unanimously in 1788. Watergate happens, and Jimmy Carter is elected, largely as a punishment to the Republican party. 4 years later, he's handily handed his walking papers. Reagen and then Bush the Elder come to power and continue an unbroken 12 year run of conservatism. 1992 rolls around and little Texas billionaire decides that Bush isn't conservative enough for him. So Perot enters the race. Now there are two conservative candidates and one liberal candidate. Obviously the conservative base is divided and Clinton takes the spoils of that election. But wait, two years later, in 1994, there's a huge influx of Republicans in Congress. They take it back after being in Democratic hands for 40 years. This forces Clinton to work from a more centrist position than he had the two years prior , welfare reform, medicare reform, and a whole host of Republican pet projects get signed into law. Clinton wins his second terms largely by running as a centrist again, and saying that he did goood things during his first term, which he did. But it's not because of his liberal policies, it's because of his forced centrist/conservative policies. Bush is elected in a very close election. He ruins a very odd administration which is very conservative on defense and foreign policy, but somewhat liberal about spending (although nothing compared to what Obama's done). Despite a media gunning for his head, and an unprecedented anti-Bush documentary released to theaters, he's still re-elected, and the Republicans still hold on Congress. It's not until 2006 that the Republicans lose Congress. And 2008, well, we all know how in the tank for Obama the media was. Oh, and did I forget to mention that if you didn't vote for him you're a racist, cause you are. Now, even Barack Obama ran largely as a centrist, saying that he didn't think the government should take over banks or companies. In fact, except for a few extremely liberal enclaves in this country, the only way liberals get elected is by running as centrists and then governing as a liberals. In other words, by lying (and yes, I agree all politicians lie)

As for a pro-life Democratic party, in your dreams! That's like saying a pre-tsarist wing of the Bolsheviks. The whole plank of the democratic party is based upon a love of death in all forms, be it death from abortion, death from forced, I mean, assisted suicide, living wills, or the gay lifestyle. The modern Democratic party loves nothing so much as death. Be it in the form of love of abortion or love Malthusian over-population fantasies. There will never be a pro-life democratic party in our lifetimes, unless there are some very, very major demographic shifts. It's not entirely impossible, just like my chair spontaneously transmuting into gold isn't entirely impossible according to quantum physics, but it is highly unlikely.

In short, America is, by it nature and Constitution, a conservative culture. Also simply by reality. The saying that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality hhas more than a little ring of truth to it. If the economy continues its downward spiral even at a slowed pace, the GOP will have no problem reclaiming Congress in 2010, and as long as they take the initiative and set the terms of the debate in 2012, they can take back the Presidency as well.

What the GOP needs to do is get back in touch with its conservative roots and really break things down for the American public in the simplest terms possible. Don't merely tell them that tax cuts are good, explain why tax cuts are good. Don't take it as a given that the American people believe in the family. Break it down and explain why strong families are good for both the individual and society as a whole. Don't assume anything about the American populace. Explain why strong defense is good. Explain why strong allies are good. Explain why Western culture has had the influence and strength that it's had. Explain precisely what was going on in the minds of the Founding Father when they created the modern Unnited States of America. If people are reminded of all these things, the GOP can win. Because all these things are inherently good, and people by their nature, seek goodness.

Anyway, as the great Dennis Miller says, that's jsut my opinion. I could be wrong.

Rebecca-

I think you misunderstand me. You are correct, my money is, indeed, God's money, granted to me through His blessings AND my hard work and willingness to leave my family every day to provide for them. I know for a fact I can distribute the money I earn to truly needy individuals in need of a "hand up," not a "hand out" much better than the government ever could.

You may misinterpret Catholic social teaching when you assume the Church wants us to take care of everyone else. In theory, that is a wonderful idea. In practice, if you make a person dependent on someone else for too long, they will remain dependent permanently. In other words, why work if you don't have to and the government will take care of you? I have seen this up close and personal when I managed a bank branch. The parade of welfare recipients at the beginning of every month was astounding. When you realize that they are also on food stamps and living in government subsidized housing and collecting over $3,000 per month in checks because of irresponsibly having three children with three different fathers (none of whom are in the picture anymore) and then saying, "I can't work...I have to take care of my kids" only to see them lying around their house all day, you get a little fed up.

The notion that there are so many truly "poor" people in this country has been proven false again and again and again. How can they say they are "poor" when they have a big screen plasma TV with all the cable channels, a car in the garage, a computer and the internet, etc.

Yes, I have the benefit of sending my 6 children to Catholic school. But I do this because I do not want my children as exposed to the "worldliness" of the children in a public school. The sacrifices my wife and I make to do this are, in our opinion, worth it. This despite the fact that my property taxes go to fund a public school system I have chosen to opt out of. The schools themselves are fine, we choose for other reasons not to allow our children there. No, all schools are not created equal. If you want to fix that problem, start by permanently dismantling the unions that have destroyed public education (particularly here in California) and allow some of the tax money to go towards vouchers for underprivileged families. We will still make our sacrifices for our kids, but more kids will have the opportunity mine do and maybe, just maybe, the public schools will improve as well. But a child of a single mother still has the opportunity to go to school every day. No one forces that child as (s)he grows older to make poor choices, like gangs, promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, etc. Yes, I know they come from a broken home and don't know any better. That is an excuse. They still can make the choice to succeed and have a better life than their single parent has. So, no, it is not purely hard work, but if that child CHOOSES to work hard (instead of join a gang, get involved with drugs, etc), the odds are greatly in their favor that they will have a better life than their parent!

Lastly, the government, no matter the checks and balances we the people impose, can NEVER properly take care of the truly needy. They will simply answer the Siren's call for their own political survival and care for the groups dependent on "their" (OUR) largesse to be re-elected. To think otherwise is naive.

If you continue to make excuses for those who will not help themselves, they will never have a need to.

There are people like this out there, sure, I've met them myself. But you assume your experience is the whole truth. It is not reflective of all those in need. Assuming all the poor are the same is like assuming all the rich are the same. Some of the wealthy are simply wealthy because their grandfather made a lot of money and now they have a trust fund.

Also, I'm not saying there should be "hand outs" and people should live off others. But that as Christians, we shouldn't have an "us and "them" attitude, we are indeed responsible to assist our brothers and sisters in very real ways. Poverty is just as much about lack of opportunity, family, hope and beauty, as it is about actual dollars.



I work with poor people who do not have any of these things.



So this inner city, single parent-raised child has the kind of formation, freedom and ability to choose another life? Really? I can only assume that you've never worked directly for any length of time with the inner city poor.

If you're at all able to do so, I encourage you to do some regular volunteer work at a shelter for homeless women and children, or a soup kitchen or something like that. Speak in depth with people who work in the inner cities of places like Chicago, Los Angeles, DC, Baltimore, Boston, St. Louis, etc. It may help shed light on these assumptions you make about children who grow up in today's urban jungles.



I never made any excuses for those who refuse to help themselves. However, I do believe we all share some responsibility for the kind of system that both creates dependents and keeps people in a continuous cycle of poverty.

Republicans have just come accross as being mean, nasty and judgmental over the past decade. It is a turnoff. Rush and Cheney do not help matters much. There is no room for moderates. I think we will see a further decline in the party before we see any recovery.

about the Republican Party? It may or may not go the way of the Whigs, but that does not mean that people can't move on to or form another party more in line with, say, their conservative principles or whatever suits their beliefs. The Republicans have always been schizophrenic in that the Rockefeller wing and the Goldwater wing never did see eye-to-eye. When the party decided to become "Democrat light" in the last election, it sealed it's own fate. The base left them for third party candidates or stayed home, and Democratic voters already had the real thing.