8 ms·

I'm not sure its fair to say "Republicans", as if there's some consensus outside of the paper, regardless of the amount of Republicans in the Republican Study C

I'm not sure its fair to say "Republicans", as if there's some consensus outside of the paper, regardless of the amount of Republicans in the Republican Study Committee. I doubt most of them know the paper exists, never-mind what conclusion it might draw. There's also no saying what percent of republicans and percent of democrats might agree with the paper. For all we know 70% of democrats and 40% of republicans might agree with the conclusion (pulled out of a hat, I might expect the % agree to be roughly the same for both parties). It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely, but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. If the Republican party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic party then they might actually do very well. If they spent their news cycles advocating research on the myriad topics in american law that border on cultish in acceptance, such as copyright and, sure, poverty reduction programs that may or may not be worth their salt, they might do great. We could use a party of respectable scrutinizers that stand skeptical of any longstanding policy that might be costing citizens (or civilization) too much. But they don't do that. Instead they spend their news cycles (conservative news stations and radio) on all this cultish crap of their own. Obscene amounts of doom-saying over every thing they might dimly disagree with. XYZ is going to "take away" guns, and kill jobs, and "ruin" (ruin!) the economy, and force an end to all prayer, and other ridiculous characterizations. Taxmageddon is the newest one. Taxmageddon. Returning to 90's tax rates is the End of Days. Lofty policy other than tax cuts, if they are thinking about other policies at all, are certainly rarely talked about, at least on the national stage. It's an interesting paper we've got on our hands here, but we have no reason to believe that the majority of republicans know it exist, never mind that they are ready to be serious and sincere about examining party priorities that might stop the entire rest of their platform from being a blocking issue towards voting for them.

maratd 14y ago
> If the Republican party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic they might actually do very well. Unfortunately, parties can't pivot on a dime. It's going to take decades. However, the Republican party is moving in that direction. Most young Republicans are fiscally conservative and socially apathetic.
- bendmorris 14y ago
  Are any current Republican politicians socially apathetic? I can't think of a single example. It doesn't seem like that's a viable way to mobilize the conservative base in any part of the country right now. Jon Huntsman tried to run a campaign that wasn't so extreme on social policy and look how that turned out.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    'Socially tolerant' or 'socially laissez-faire' are probably better terms than 'socially apathetic'. Schwarzenegger was. Rudy Guiliani, for the most part. Ron Paul has been, in most policy dimensions. When Romney was running for MA Senate and then elected as Governor, he was pretty socially tolerant, as well. And before him, another Massachusetts GOP governor, William Weld. Chris Christie isn't a socially-conservative crusader, and a number of the other GOP governors/senators are more pragmatic than anything else. It's always been there; it just needs a stronger hand versus the deeply socially conservative elements. However, as more issues have "nationalized" the parties have homogenized somewhat, with Dems successfully tarnishing even socially-tolerant Republicans as if they were the same as faraway hardcore religious conservatives, and liberal Republicans peeling away (as with Lincoln Chafee in RI and Charlie Crist in FL). I suspect the national parties (or perhaps mainly the GOP) will have to devolve into more than 2 brands for healthy regional competitiveness. While our system has a bias at every level towards 2-big-coalitions, having only two harmonized national brands doesn't offer sufficient competitive diversity. "Coke vs. Pepsi" is not enough for a nation this big, and especially damages the Republicans, as the more-stingy party.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >I suspect the national parties (or perhaps especially the GOP) will have to devolve into more than 2 brands for healthy regional competitiveness. I think you're underestimating said bias toward two parties. Unless we switch to approval voting or the like, you'll never see a stable third party in this country. The simple math makes it so that given any three parties, the two most similar parties have the incentive to both back the same candidate, because the alternative of running opposing candidates invariably leads to those candidates splitting the vote and giving the election to the least similar party. And by the time they're both backing all the same candidates they might as well merge into one party. The thing that can happen, and could achieve a significant improvement, is for a new party to come about that replaces one of the existing parties. That allows you to throw out the old leadership and start over with a clean slate. The biggest difficulty is in building a stable coalition. If you want to eject the religious zealots and the climate change "skeptics" and the imbeciles who want to keep government out of Medicare then you need to replace them with something that supplies an equivalent number of votes and/or campaign funding. Tech is a good start, but it might not be enough on its own. But the nice thing is that once you've decided who you're not going to invite into the tent, you know exactly whose ox to gore. I have to imagine a fiscally conservative-leaning party would have a lot easier time capturing the votes of centrist Democrats if they were pro-choice, pro-science, pro-education, pro-alternative energy, etc.
gwright 14y ago
I think you are reading a bit much into the use of "Republican" in the blog title. Headlines all the time are written in the form of "Democrats say..." or "Republicans report ..." and so on. No one gets confused into thinking that that some sort of roll-call vote has been taken or that a 'consensus' has been reached by all party members.
anewguy 14y ago
You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction.
brownbat 14y ago
> It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely, but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. Agreed. This article was the second suggestion I read recently on how the Republican party could improve its brand. The other piece, courtesy the Atlantic, seemed more pressing, and might be one of those things that's hard to put nicely: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-must-choose-rush-limbaugh-or-minority-voters/265002/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-...
- tsotha 14y ago
  Ah, yes. The Republicans are getting no end of advice from people on the left as to what they should do to start winning elections after a relatively narrow loss. It seems 2010 has been completely erased from the collective Democratic memory, as is the fact that the Republicans were returned control of the House of Representatives. Somehow all the advice we're getting is "move left" and "be more like us". Thanks, guys. We'll take it under advisement.
rz2k 14y ago
This discussion is likely to venture too far into politics for this forum, but which programs fit under the category of poverty reduction? I ask, because the term makes me think of people with no conceivable prospects who are essentially being sustained out of pity. However, it is probably fair to draw a distinction between programs like Section 8 housing and food stamps (which probably total less than $30B), and the universe of all means-tested programs. Increasing the talent pool is vital to producing a dynamic economy. It sounds touchy-feely, but things like school lunch programs are an enormous success when judged on the basis of their effect on childhood development, and the resulting increase in greater eventual intelligence, educational attainment, and productivity. Regardless of whether people have contempt for their parents, or pity that some people may simply have worse luck than others, something as boring as one healthy meal five days a week for nine months of the year has measurable effects on cognitive development for people who didn't choose their parents. The same goes for programs like subsidized preschool education, programs that educate young parents who didn't learn how to nurture from their parents, and many other small programs that are likely to sound very boring and very futile, but effect real incremental change that ultimately benefits the entire economy more than the individual beneficiaries. On the other end of means tested programs from those that encourage talent pool development, are the social safety net programs that facilitate enterprising risk. Early in the nation's history for example the perfectly justifiable idea of debtors' prisons was abolished for the more pragmatic practice of bankruptcy protection. More modern programs make it increasingly possible for not only young single people to go all in on a startup, but people with families, with less risk that a failure will put their children on the street. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't work on savings, but that they can take an even bolder risk when worth it. It may be logical to argue that they should suffer the consequences of their risk, but the economy probably experiences a net benefit from encouraging people away from their biases toward playing it safe. I get that social programs are really boring, especially since they tend to be top-down organized and not very entrepreneurial, yet it isn't accurate either to assume that they are all over-sentimental and based on pity alone, or that they all ultimately end up undermining people's chances of standing on their own feet.
- zero_intp 14y ago
  I have to say that this is one of the most insightful comments I have read on HN.
Monotoko 14y ago
anewguy, I think you've been hellbanned by a mod... which means no-one can see your comments, he wrote: "You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction."
nickik 14y ago
I would hope the learn the diffrence between pro-market and pro-buissness. Or rather I hope that anybody learns it.

maratd 14y ago

> If the Republican party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic they might actually do very well. Unfortunately, parties can't pivot on a dime. It's going to take decades. However, the Republican party is moving in that direction. Most young Republicans are fiscally conservative and socially apathetic.

bendmorris 14y ago
Are any current Republican politicians socially apathetic? I can't think of a single example. It doesn't seem like that's a viable way to mobilize the conservative base in any part of the country right now. Jon Huntsman tried to run a campaign that wasn't so extreme on social policy and look how that turned out.
- gojomo 14y ago
  'Socially tolerant' or 'socially laissez-faire' are probably better terms than 'socially apathetic'. Schwarzenegger was. Rudy Guiliani, for the most part. Ron Paul has been, in most policy dimensions. When Romney was running for MA Senate and then elected as Governor, he was pretty socially tolerant, as well. And before him, another Massachusetts GOP governor, William Weld. Chris Christie isn't a socially-conservative crusader, and a number of the other GOP governors/senators are more pragmatic than anything else. It's always been there; it just needs a stronger hand versus the deeply socially conservative elements. However, as more issues have "nationalized" the parties have homogenized somewhat, with Dems successfully tarnishing even socially-tolerant Republicans as if they were the same as faraway hardcore religious conservatives, and liberal Republicans peeling away (as with Lincoln Chafee in RI and Charlie Crist in FL). I suspect the national parties (or perhaps mainly the GOP) will have to devolve into more than 2 brands for healthy regional competitiveness. While our system has a bias at every level towards 2-big-coalitions, having only two harmonized national brands doesn't offer sufficient competitive diversity. "Coke vs. Pepsi" is not enough for a nation this big, and especially damages the Republicans, as the more-stingy party.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >I suspect the national parties (or perhaps especially the GOP) will have to devolve into more than 2 brands for healthy regional competitiveness. I think you're underestimating said bias toward two parties. Unless we switch to approval voting or the like, you'll never see a stable third party in this country. The simple math makes it so that given any three parties, the two most similar parties have the incentive to both back the same candidate, because the alternative of running opposing candidates invariably leads to those candidates splitting the vote and giving the election to the least similar party. And by the time they're both backing all the same candidates they might as well merge into one party. The thing that can happen, and could achieve a significant improvement, is for a new party to come about that replaces one of the existing parties. That allows you to throw out the old leadership and start over with a clean slate. The biggest difficulty is in building a stable coalition. If you want to eject the religious zealots and the climate change "skeptics" and the imbeciles who want to keep government out of Medicare then you need to replace them with something that supplies an equivalent number of votes and/or campaign funding. Tech is a good start, but it might not be enough on its own. But the nice thing is that once you've decided who you're not going to invite into the tent, you know exactly whose ox to gore. I have to imagine a fiscally conservative-leaning party would have a lot easier time capturing the votes of centrist Democrats if they were pro-choice, pro-science, pro-education, pro-alternative energy, etc.

gwright 14y ago

I think you are reading a bit much into the use of "Republican" in the blog title. Headlines all the time are written in the form of "Democrats say..." or "Republicans report ..." and so on. No one gets confused into thinking that that some sort of roll-call vote has been taken or that a 'consensus' has been reached by all party members.

anewguy 14y ago

You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction.

brownbat 14y ago

> It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely, but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. Agreed. This article was the second suggestion I read recently on how the Republican party could improve its brand. The other piece, courtesy the Atlantic, seemed more pressing, and might be one of those things that's hard to put nicely: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-must-choose-rush-limbaugh-or-minority-voters/265002/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-...

tsotha 14y ago
Ah, yes. The Republicans are getting no end of advice from people on the left as to what they should do to start winning elections after a relatively narrow loss. It seems 2010 has been completely erased from the collective Democratic memory, as is the fact that the Republicans were returned control of the House of Representatives. Somehow all the advice we're getting is "move left" and "be more like us". Thanks, guys. We'll take it under advisement.

rz2k 14y ago

This discussion is likely to venture too far into politics for this forum, but which programs fit under the category of poverty reduction? I ask, because the term makes me think of people with no conceivable prospects who are essentially being sustained out of pity. However, it is probably fair to draw a distinction between programs like Section 8 housing and food stamps (which probably total less than $30B), and the universe of all means-tested programs. Increasing the talent pool is vital to producing a dynamic economy. It sounds touchy-feely, but things like school lunch programs are an enormous success when judged on the basis of their effect on childhood development, and the resulting increase in greater eventual intelligence, educational attainment, and productivity. Regardless of whether people have contempt for their parents, or pity that some people may simply have worse luck than others, something as boring as one healthy meal five days a week for nine months of the year has measurable effects on cognitive development for people who didn't choose their parents. The same goes for programs like subsidized preschool education, programs that educate young parents who didn't learn how to nurture from their parents, and many other small programs that are likely to sound very boring and very futile, but effect real incremental change that ultimately benefits the entire economy more than the individual beneficiaries. On the other end of means tested programs from those that encourage talent pool development, are the social safety net programs that facilitate enterprising risk. Early in the nation's history for example the perfectly justifiable idea of debtors' prisons was abolished for the more pragmatic practice of bankruptcy protection. More modern programs make it increasingly possible for not only young single people to go all in on a startup, but people with families, with less risk that a failure will put their children on the street. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't work on savings, but that they can take an even bolder risk when worth it. It may be logical to argue that they should suffer the consequences of their risk, but the economy probably experiences a net benefit from encouraging people away from their biases toward playing it safe. I get that social programs are really boring, especially since they tend to be top-down organized and not very entrepreneurial, yet it isn't accurate either to assume that they are all over-sentimental and based on pity alone, or that they all ultimately end up undermining people's chances of standing on their own feet.

zero_intp 14y ago
I have to say that this is one of the most insightful comments I have read on HN.

Monotoko 14y ago

anewguy, I think you've been hellbanned by a mod... which means no-one can see your comments, he wrote: "You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction."

nickik 14y ago

I would hope the learn the diffrence between pro-market and pro-buissness. Or rather I hope that anybody learns it.