What's next for the GOP?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Whoha
hopefully they'll ditch free trade.

I just don't understand opposition to free trade. How would you feel if you had to pay a tax on interstate commerce?

The problem with these agreements is that most of them aren't faithful to free-trade ideals. They've got all kinds of exceptions for farmers and other influential lobbies. Get rid of those, and you'll see more popular support. After all, free trade has only made people more prosperous.

[Naked Gents Rut]

If Obama is wise he'll tell the hard left to piss off. He doesn't need to do anything for the social liberals, or the folks in NE.

You think the hard left is in Nebraska?

[OzzyKP]

Everyone was saying the same thing in '04 about how the Dems were doomed and the party would split, etc. I don't think the nation has changed much at all, nor has the nation turned to the left. Bush was extraordinarily unpopular which made it difficult for any Republican to win, and the Democrats put up an extraordinary candidate this year who out-hustled McCain.

There's no reason the opposite couldn't occur in 4 or 8 years.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Haven't the last 8 years shown us that external conditions trump logic and analysis?

Of course, but people still want to believe that voters have some control over this.

Look, you can vote for the Republicans and receive economic neoliberalism, or you can vote for the Democrats and receive... economic neoliberalism. If you decide to start a party that offers a non-neoliberal platform, pro-neoliberal interests will bury it if it even gets that far, which is unlikely. Neoliberalism is like Ingsoc – an ideology that destroys the capacity for ideological discussion.

We live in a post political age. Politics is ineffective squabbling about poofs getting married, television violence, and prayer in schools. Economic discussion by politicians is simply a peculiar form of rhetoric designed to convince the maximum number of people that they will get a hand out or at worst won't have to give anything up.

Bush went from insanely popular to virtual laughingstock in the course of his presidency. But I'm convinced that if the terrorist attacks on US soil had continued into his 2nd term, McCain would have won this election with relative ease.

Of course. Politics, including the global war against evil, is merely a sideshow.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Felch
I just don't understand opposition to free trade.

The problem with these agreements is that most of them aren't faithful to free-trade ideals. They've got all kinds of exceptions for farmers and other influential lobbies. Get rid of those, and you'll see more popular support. After all, free trade has only made people more prosperous.

Clearly Some small portion of the economy will not see free trade working for them. But just as clearly, if free trade truly works then said individuals will be in the extreme minority, and there is no need what so ever to worry about them. After all, free trade has only made people more prosperous.

How would you feel if you had to pay a tax on interstate commerce?

This argument is specious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think in the long term the Republicans need to jettison their anti-immigrant faction. They border (and sometimes not just border) on xenophobia against Hispanics. As Hispanics are growing solidly AND are socially conservative, this could be a way to win in the future.

[DanS]

A majority of the US holds anti-immigrant views. No way to jettison that faction, although I agree that it would be great if we could.

[snoopy369]

The arguments for and against free trade come down to this:

For free trade means you believe in supporting those industries the US has an advantage in. Against free trade means supporting industries we do not have an advantage in. You put up barriers to trade (tariffs) to enhance industries where you are at a disadvantage in order to counter that advantage. (I'm not talking comparitive advantage, but actual advantage - where we produce something cheaper domestically than we could import it, tariffs aside).

Both arguments have some merit; you find the free trade argument is more compelling when you have an overall advantage in many industries, while you will find the tariffed trade argument is more compelling when you are at a disadvantage. But as the strength of the US becomes less and less in actual manufacturing, free trade becomes less and less to our advantage, unless we change things fundamentally in our economy to return to that advantage. Couple that with the fact that nearly half of the US is in industries that are hurt by free trade (areas where we are disadvantaged compared to China/Japan/Canada/etc.), and thus they have a significant incentive to oppose free trade, and it would not surprise me to see the US step far away from free trade over the next few decades. That may be to the significant advantage of the Dems (who generally oppose free trade), as the key states PA, MI, and OH are very much in the groups who are going to be more and more disadvantaged.

That said, I'm a free trade advocate ... but I'm also very much a realist in terms of politics. I suspect the GOP needs to move towards 'smart' free trade - either tariff-free but incentive-permitted trade (where we subsidize industries we consider important to national security and/or vitality), or simply move away from free trade, to win elections.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think in the long term the Republicans need to jettison their anti-immigrant faction. They border (and sometimes not just border) on xenophobia against Hispanics. As Hispanics are growing solidly AND are homophobic, this could be a way to win in the future.

Rallying bigots to your party in order to win.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DanS
A majority of the US holds anti-immigrant views. No way to jettison that faction, although I agree that it would be great if we could.

Indeed... as Hispanics tend to grow in proportion, you need those votes.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Both arguments have some merit

No.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Indeed... as Hispanics tend to grow in proportion, you need those votes.

Then... we need someone like John McCain to win their vote?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We need the rest of the party to follow in McCain (and yes, Bush's) immigration ideals. At the very least, Gingrich's immigration ideals.

[KrazyHorse]

Per Brad Delong, McCain won the South by 6.5% while losing the rest of the country by 12.5%. This is by far the widest South/non-South split in recent history.

Any strategy which increases their margin of victory in the South at the expense of non-Southern votes is a straight-up loser. They have gone too far into their Southern strategy. They need to draw in non-Southern votes. Period. Any strategic recommendations must bear that in mind.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We need the rest of the party to follow in McCain (and yes, Bush's) immigration ideals. At the very least, Gingrich's immigration ideals.

McCain and Bush on immigration and trade: