3 ms·
Instead of making a new party he should try to revive the pre-Trump Republican party. Here are some things from the 2008 Republican Party Platform [1] that ill
by tzs 1y ago
Instead of making a new party he should try to revive the pre-Trump Republican party.
Here are some things from the 2008 Republican Party Platform [1] that illustrate what Republicans used to be for that Trump has completely reversed the current party on:
• They wanted to address climate change.
> By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the environment.
...
> As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
...
> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
• They wanted to encourage clean energy.
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
• They wanted to reduce demand for fossil fuels.
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
...
> We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-pa...
- jfengel 1y agoNote that in 2008, the Republican party got absolutely massacred. The Democrats won the Senate by a filibuster-proof margin. The Republicans were saved only by the death of Ted Kennedy, and even Massachusetts didn't want the Democrats to have that much control. The Republicans came roaring back in 2010, in large part because they abandoned the positions you outlined. Those simply aren't positions Republicans hold. Those are much closer to Democratic positions. If those are his goals, it might work better to stage a takeover of the Democratic party. Although Republicans run successfully against the most progressive elements of the Democratic party, they're actually not very influential. (That is, in large part, why they lose -- they can't keep their own progressive wing, who considers the party leadership right wing.) Or at least, somebody other than Musk could try it. He's an extremely unreliable partner and it would be extremely difficult to convince Democrats that he's on their side.