Where do Republicans go from here?

[mamselle]

It's all Nixon's doing. Calling them the "Silent Majority" gave them credibility and a sense of place in the political world.

One wishes they'd remained a bit more silent....or less enamored of the No-Nothings....

M.

[writingprof]

I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

Sure, these questions always occur after elections, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth asking and answering. And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

[dismalist]

And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Seventy four million Republican voters believe in democracy and are not politically violent. Those who were closer to Trump will not go away.

Democrats have a problem with rules and with political violence.

[writingprof]

I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

Sure, these questions always occur after elections, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth asking and answering. And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Give me a break. To the extent that Republicans have to decide as much, the situation is not unique. Some of us are old enough to remember Democrats in 1968. More importantly, the contention that any such "decision" is pending is absurd and hysterical--the rhetorical equivalent of crocodile tears.

[mahagonny]

'Away' would be nice.

Then the United States will have only a single national-level political party.  A one-party system is not good for democracy in the long term.

Nah. They could (and should) be replaced by something else.

Impossible. As long as people have to come into contact with liberals there will be conservatives.

[mythbuster]

Only one of the 7 senators who voted to impeach face re-election in the next 2 years. Burr in NC is retiring, so the censure means nothing to him.

If they were smart and organized, I would say now is the opportunity for the Libertarians to make a push to become significant. A party of limited government with socially liberal values would appeal to many. However, the last time I looked the Libertarians were arguing over eliminating Driver's licenses, so I don't see that level of outreach happening any time soon.

[dismalist]

Some of us are old enough to remember Democrats in 1968.

I was working in fast food at the time of the convention, 18 years old. Came home, greasy, sweaty and dirty, after a 10 hour shift, put on the TV and got a beer. Saw the riot.

Asked myself why I was working.

[Sun_Worshiper]

And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Seventy four million Republican voters believe in democracy and are not politically violent. Those who were closer to Trump will not go away.

Democrats have a problem with rules and with political violence.

Sorry, but no. The leader of the Republican party tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election, and he found support from over 100 Representatives, many local party officials, and quite a few senators. Among the party's activist base, there are a lot of idiotic conspiracy theories and a lot of support for authoritarianism.

Democrats have their problems, but unlike the Republicans the lunatic wing of the Democratic party is (a) not as crazy, (b) not as large, and (c) not in charge of anything. 

I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

Sure, these questions always occur after elections, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth asking and answering. And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Give me a break. To the extent that Republicans have to decide as much, the situation is not unique. Some of us are old enough to remember Democrats in 1968. More importantly, the contention that any such "decision" is pending is absurd and hysterical--the rhetorical equivalent of crocodile tears.

I'm not aware of any Democratic president in 1968 who tried to overturn American democracy. 

Look, the Republican party has a problem with authoritarianism. You can say it is nbd that party leadership tried to overturn American democracy and make absurd comparisons to Democrats in 2004, or you can deal with the reality of the situation, which is that the Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak, that doesn't have a clear path back to winning electoral majorities.

[dismalist]

the Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

[Sun_Worshiper]

the Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

You are the one living in an alternative reality if you can't see that  trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election constitutes an authoritarian streak.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm not aware of any Democratic president in 1968 who tried to overturn American democracy. 

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Indian Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act). I guess that counts as successully overturning American democracy in the same way that 'interpreting the law' = 'acting illegally', .

[dismalist]

the Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

You are the one living in an alternative reality if you can't see that  trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election constitutes an authoritarian streak.

That's not the 74 million voters, at all. These won't go away.

[mahagonny]

Democrats have their problems, but unlike the Republicans the lunatic wing of the Democratic party is (a) not as crazy, (b) not as large, and (c) not in charge of anything. 

Let's wait and see. Anyone who gets to teach little children that (1) there are inherent problems with whiteness and we need to learn how to be 'antiracist' everyday in everything we think say and do, according to someone's limited and one-sided idea of what that would entail, and (2) it's time to start thinking about which gender you want to belong to
is in charge of a lot, very dangerous, and needs to be isolated/marginalized, not reasoned with.
Also, a noisy handful of far-left lunatics are getting a very wide berth among the higher education elite and are emboldened by tenure protections. And that will only get worse. Conservatives can also have tenure but they are far outnumbered. The combined attributes of PhD, publishing of books and tenure can add up to a lot of authority.
The left, if not the hard-left, is a clear majority of Hollywood, half or more of the media and most of talk-show television.

[mahagonny]

con't

One man's opinion, apropos of this thread: https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/02/16/opening_statement_for_the_center_for_the_american_way_of_life_660266.html

I would vote for Mitt Romney but I doubt he'll run. Remember, the guy who appealed to racism in an effort to beat Obama in 2012, is not really a person, but more of a corporation with a life-support system, who wants everyone to be unemployed, and more recently inspired six other republicans to vote to impeach DJT, something none of us have ever done, by the way. He would be a little younger than Joe Biden is now and appears quite fit and healthy. Not even a weight problem. I wouldn't vote for him for what he would do as much as for what he would prevent.