The near-term future of the Republican Party

[Martin Blank]

I do find it interesting that the concern seems to be for hermit undocumented hispanics, disregarding the quite large population of impoverished white people all over the state of Texas. If the concern is truly about poverty, not voting demographics, then I'm not sure why you wouldn't be equally concerned about the ability of rural trailer trash to get a free ID and vote.

I'm concerned about the ability of rural anyone to be able to get a free ID and vote. A huge portion of those are poor, and many of them vote Democrat, whether they're white, black, or Hispanic. By making it difficult for them to vote, it helps lock in Republican majorities.

And there have been times in my life where I didn't have valid ID and wasn't able to get one due to lack of documents at hand. So the penalty for my hectic youth should be being denied the right to vote? I'd love to see somebody say that to my face.

While I don't see a notable problem with voter fraud now, that's not to say that it can't happen. Certainly, voter fraud has been a problem in the past, with allegations of it leading to the election of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in the 1960s and JFK to the White House. Modern systems that mandate reporting of identities of the deceased to voter registrars have dramatically reduced the opportunity for such fraud. The ability of people to register to vote upon getting a driver's license if they're a citizen (which has to be proven via birth certificate, passport, or other means) has increased the number of people who require an ID to vote.

But yes, under the laws that I'd like to see in place, you would have been denied the ability to vote. I'd like to see a federal hardship exemption for key documents such as birth certificates that, with the help of a notary, could be gotten for the cost of a stamp (and the notary, some of which offer free services to the poor). I mentioned above that I believe some mobility of officials authorized to verify voter registration documents would be a strong safety net against those who simply wouldn't have access. There would be cost, but it would also strengthen the voting process overall by ensuring that those who want and are qualified to vote are able to do so.

Mandatory availability of early voting should also occur. Even though most states have laws requiring companies to provide unpaid time off to vote, this still isn't always practical. Someone may not have the means to make it to a polling station 20+ miles away in some remote parts of Texas on voting day, but either through absentee ballots or by having polling stations open on multiple days, opportunities should be there to accommodate varying schedules. Pinning people to one specific day (selected historically because it wasn't the Sabbath, because travel by farmers to and from the distant polling stations could take a day in each direction, and because market day was on Wednesday) isn't terribly fair and has become a general nuisance even to those who do want to vote.

[Martin Blank]

I'm going to double-post because this post veers significantly from the voter ID point that has taken up the last page or so.

The conservative voices of the last decade are dropping away, at least in popularity if not in volume.

Sarah Palin's contract with Fox News was not renewed. I don't know if it was a money issue, a ratings issue, that Fox News was tiring of Palin's family constantly appearing elsewhere in the news in negative ways, or just that Palin didn't want to continue. But whatever the case, her regular appearances will not be continuing.

Rush Limbaugh's ratings have been in significant decline, and in 2014, Rush was dropped from KFI, the highest-rated talk radio station in the Los Angeles area (a 3.5 rating as of May 2015) and a strong driver of conservative messages, in its move to focus on local issues. Rush's move to KEIB, heralded as a new all-conservative talk station, resulted in that station's ratings coming up only a fraction of his old LA home: as of May 2015, the station's ratings were a mere 0.9, putting it behind KPCC (2.1) and KCRW (1.3), public radio stations run by local community colleges. Joining him were Glenn Beck (already on his own independent syndication network after even Fox News wouldn't keep him) and Sean Hannity, and the trio doesn't seem to have done a lot to raise the ratings at the station (even though the current ratings are nearly double the 0.5 from a year ago).

The current selection of Republican candidates doesn't bode well, either. I've read some compelling suggestions that many of the people know they have zero chance at being elected, but may be doing it to gain some national prominence and maybe pick up a TV gig or some speaking opportunities. Others are convinced by selection bias (i.e., people they know) that they can win if they can just get the message out, but are about to run into the cold reality of a packed field; an Iowa campaign event for Rick Santorum earlier this month resulted in exactly one person showing up. (Ultimately, three others joined the table, but it's not clear they showed up specifically for him. I'm really not a fan of Santorum, but I still feel kind of bad about those numbers.) That should be a significant indicator in a state with a highly active Republican Party core.

A big part of this is that the demographics for the Republican Party still skew heavily toward older, white, and more well-off people, and many of them are still terrified that if we let go of their values, the communists will take over. (I'm really not kidding about the communist thing--my Facebook page is sometimes littered with claims that the Clintons, Obama, Kerry, and Gore are communists gleefully waiting for the final push to happen so they can take over complete control, and I see it on G+ and Twitter, too.) They're joined by older Cubans in Florida, but many younger Cubans aren't as afraid of the communists and so are less likely to take the hardline stand against relations with Cuba. Many businesses would like to see the Cuban market reopened, too.

Finally, I think even Republicans are tiring of the no-compromise attitude prevalent in so many elected to Congress. The first big backlash against that came from NJ Gov. Christie when he accepted federal emergency funds after Hurricane Sandy hit and drew criticism (or at least questions) from conservative commentators, but there have been other strong signs of tension. That candidates such as Jeb Bush are pushing ideas that only a few years ago were unthinkable (amnesty, Common Core [at least not running from it], and willingness to consider tax increases) shows that part of the pack is trying to break out, but I fear that won't be enough, and the Republicans will put up a candidate in 2016 whose platform is essentially "I'm not Obama." That platform in the form of "I'm not Bush" failed for Kerry in 2004 (as did his completely boring persona), and McCain ran on something like an "I'm not quite Bush" campaign in 2008 and did poorly. Romney tried to run on his own platform while trying to placate the Tea Party, resulting in mixed messages.

We've reached the end of a generation in the Republican Party, I think. It shifted dramatically away from what would now be called centrist roots in the late 1970s, and the pendulum may be starting to shift back. The Democrats seem to be on a half-cycle with a more centrist shift coming with Bill Clinton when compared to Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis. Maybe we'll see a bit more of a bipartisan look in about 8-10 years if the Republicans begin a centrist shift now. If they fail to do so, we may just see a lot more infighting, and maybe even a third party come of it.

Now that I write that, I'm not sure which one I want to happen.

[Deacon]

While I think it's impossible for everyone to agree anyway, I think the Republicans would have a lot more success if they stopped trying to legislate morality. That is, they stopped trying to find ways to ban gay marriage, abortions, marijuana, and so on. I have a feeling (based on no data whatsoever, just a hunch) that socially libertarian and fiscally conservative would be a winning combination. And at some point one's principles have to shape policy rather than working backward to retroactively justify policy.

It would help enormously if those principles were something other than, "Well, my religion says so." The same people who so obnoxiously insist that the citizens and government of the United States should operate according to their church's interpretation of Christianity will instantly go red in the face and shit their pants if a Muslim insists the same. And they do so with no sense of irony, unable to reconcile how one is identical to the other. "My religion should dictate law! What? No, Shariah law is religious law and can't be allowed here!" Infuriating.

The problem is that we start talking about ways for one party to win or the other, rather than that party's principles, and more importantly rather than ensuring the will of the people is an interest to be served rather than an obstacle to be worked around.

[Arc Orion]

It would help enormously if those principles were something other than, "Well, my religion says so." The same people who so obnoxiously insist that the citizens and government of the United States should operate according to their church's interpretation of Christianity will instantly go red in the face and shit their pants if a Muslim insists the same. And they do so with no sense of irony, unable to reconcile how one is identical to the other. "My religion should dictate law! What? No, Shariah law is religious law and can't be allowed here!" Infuriating.

Not that I agree with them, but their particular stance in this instance is typically more along the lines that "America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles". The implication is that Christian ethos are part of the core identity of the American nation, and thus any other religions attempting to supplant that position are going to fundamentally alter American culture. To be honest, they're true, to a point. Christianity has had a large impact upon American culture, but as our culture has developed and adapted, it's begun to encompass more fluidly the "melting pot" element of Americanism. This means that some of those Christian elements will be diminished or re-examined.

[Deacon]

Nothing about the founding of America was patterned after or even consistent with Christianity. The only reason people try to imply that is because the way visitors worked out most of the founders were born into some version of Christianity or another.

Back to the voter ID discussion...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... voter-id-/

[NorthernComfort]

yay, memes!

[Arc Orion]

Nothing about the founding of America was patterned after or even consistent with Christianity. The only reason people try to imply that is because the way visitors worked out most of the founders were born into some version of Christianity or another.

This isn't the point. I said I disagreed with their stance. Even assuming that Christianity has had zero cultural impact on the US or its founding, these people do believe so, and your original statement is still a misrepresentation of their mindset.

[Deacon]

I guess I'm not following you. What "original statement" is a misrepresentation?

[Deacon]

On the topic of voter fraud, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2011 Texas law runs afoul of parts of the federal Voting Rights Act (https://www.facebook.com/klbmarsh/posts ... 5109134692) This in the face of evidence that non-citizen voters cast their invalid ballots for democrats at a rate of about 80% and could very well have tipped the elections of a number of prominent offices including the president: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mon ... -election/

[NorthernComfort]

Donald Trump is doing pretty well at firing up the base over immigration.

[Deacon]

Well, illegal immigration, yeah. That's one area that seems to be difficult for either side to grasp. Republicans are painted as being against all immigrants while Democrats are painted as being for all immigrants. It's frustrating because there's a very distinct difference between immigrants coming through legal channels in search of making a start on a better life and those who feel entitled to come in illegally and make their way in the shadows. It's important to acknowledge that the overwhelming, vast majority of problems in this regard involves immigration from Latin America.

My perspective on this may be different than most, though, having a mother born and raised in Mexico, having lived in Latin America from ages 11 to 16, having family in and from Mexico, and being very well acquainted with how things work near the border.

It's a compound issue, something of a perfect storm. Latin American culture in general is not one with great respect for integrity and lawfulness. There are many reasons for this, but the end result is that in general you do what you can to get ahead regardless of rules or laws, and you don't feel bad about it. It both leads to widespread corruption and then helps justify itself. So people coming across the border illegally aren't feeling guilty about it. The law and process and system are just obstacles to be worked around in whatever manner seems efficacious at the time. It makes it that much worse that the law and process and system are painful and slow and laden with red tape, and it's too restrictive to make seasonal employment visas an option, for example.

So you take a crappy system together with people who don't care much for abiding by the system in the first place, and you end up with lots of people who see all manner of opportunities to say screw it and move to the US. If they're one of the handful that get deported, it's just a temporary inconvenience. There are many social workers, already tasked with ensuring as many people as possible receive benefits from taxpayer funded entitlement programs, who are very sympathetic to their situation and will do what they can to help them out. Walking across the border in labor is like hitting the jackpot, because legally they can't be sent back to be handled by the Mexican hospitals, they get free medical and hospital services, they're given a massive amount of free stuff (diapers and formula and baby clothes and all the paraphernalia and trimmings), and because they managed to give birth across the border, that baby is now not only the source of a steady stream of entitlement program income and services, free education, free medical care, but it's also the easiest way in on a permanent residency if they want it. And before you refute me, remember that my Mexico-born-and-raised mother was a neonatal nurse in Laredo for about a decade. This is not conjecture.

So on the one hand you have Republicans who seem to trying to address individual symptoms rather than helping address the cause (and Trump's idiotic wall idea is a colossal waste of time and money aside from being a blight on the landscape), and you have the Democrats who are trying to ensure they keep luring them in with promises of free stuff paid for by others and tying them up as Democrat voters for life. And nobody's even attempting to address the actual issue of a broken immigration system.

PS Mexico requires a government issued ID to vote. But improving our system to Mexican standards is racist?

PPS If you think some Republicans aren't immigrant-friendly, the KKK has nothing on how Mexico treats people coming up through its southern border. There's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy involved, feeding on ignorant Americans' misplaced sympathies.

[NorthernComfort]

I'm just pointing out that the near-term future of the Republican party seems pretty centered upon what Trump's talking about, which is a lot of talk about immigration with xenophobic undercurrents. He has also spoken out against legal immigration, for instance, claiming that more H1Bs hurts American workers. Basically he's tapping into a very real strain of anti-immigrant sentiment in the GOP. So is that the near-term future of the GOP? We'll see. I wonder how many times the Trump campaign can dodge questions about white nationalist endorsements and people yelling "white power" at his rallies before the clowny facade finally breaks down and the GOP is forced to figure out what they actually are / want to be. I had no idea what the catalyst for the GOP's self-reckoning for this issue would be, but the fact that it took Donald Trump is pretty hilarious!

Edited to add responses to these since they seemed pointed at somebody? me?

PS Mexico requires a government issued ID to vote. But improving our system to Mexican standards is racist?

According the Department of Justice: yes. Also, as you mentioned, Mexico has the cultural history of corruption that absolutely required this law to be put into effect.

PPS If you think some Republicans aren't immigrant-friendly, the KKK has nothing on how Mexico treats people coming up through its southern border. There's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy involved, feeding on ignorant Americans' misplaced sympathies.

You're right. I mean, some Trump supporters are racist white nationalists, but compared to the KKK - oh, wait, they basically are the KKK. Whoops. Never mind! On the other hand, let's leave arguments about moral relativism to undergrads and keep on topic: the future of the GOP.

[Deacon]

It's difficult (wrong, even?) to malign politicians based on who claims to support them. That's not something they can control. The closest they can come is the double-edged sword of acknowledging and condemning them. Black Panthers support Obama? Not much he can do about that. Some asshole shouts about white power at a Trump rally? I haven't heard that, but without more info there's no telling if it's real or a plant, and either way you can't on its own use that as condemnation.

[NorthernComfort]

Would you vote for Trump if he were the GOP nominee? (just curious)

And I think it's safe to say that Trump is pretty well aware what sort of fire he's playing with. I certainly believe he does.

[Deacon]

Probably not, based on what I've seen so far. Depends who he's running against, I guess. My man Rand Paul is too libertarian for the Republican primary overlords, which is sad and frustrating. I would vote for nearly anyone other than Hillary, though. I'd rather have Bernie Sanders in there, even. He's a deluded nutjob, but he seems sincere about it, at least. And really, everyone gives the office of president too much credit and blame, both. Best case scenario Sanders gets in, congressional Republicans are forced to abandon their borrow-and-spend counter to tax-and-spend, and they kind of nullify each other, and nothing much gets through for 4 or 8 years. A slowdown of governmental interventionism in our daily lives would be welcome to me.

EDIT: Wait, he's playing with fire? What fire?