digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Pat Buchanan: Is the GOP Still a National Party?

creators.com — The majority of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation Nixon cobbled together in 1972, that became the Reagan coalition of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation in 1984, is a faded memory for the GOP. Demographically, philosophically and culturally, the party base has been shrinking since Bush I won his 40-state triumph over Michael Dukakis.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 21, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

209 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • michaelpinto, on 01/20/2009, -10/+82No matter what side you're on you have to admit that Pat is very bright (for starters he got it right in Iraq before most others on either side). His thesis is that the Republicans are becoming a regional party limited to the south, and looking at Sarah Palin I'd say that he's right on the money.

    The Republicans have winners but they seem to hate them - do you think Michael Bloomberg would have a shot at the nomination in 2012 even if he threw a billion dollars at it? The anti-Mormon thing killing Mitt was also a taste of this as well. The Republicans would do well to take a look back at Dwight D. Eisenhower and ditch the notion that liberal is a dirty word. And speaking of Ike - can you ever imagine him being anti-science? In fact even if you look at Barry Goldwater (the guy who started it all) you see a man who was not only pro-science (he was a huge supporter of NASA) but at the end of his life he was pro-gay rights.
  • muckemuck, on 01/20/2009, -3/+64At the rate they're going they'll be third party (behind "unaffiliated" or "independent") in several states by 2010. If that happens then the voters in those states need to get together and demand more representation in the media than the third party that is the GOP.

    And I think Buchanan is flat wrong on why the GOP is shrinking. It's not because people are less interested in "smaller government" - it's that the GOP NO LONGER STANDS FOR THAT. They're the party of big government (like the Democrats) and war. The fiscal conservatives who used to vote for Republicans see little difference between the spending of Bush and the spending of Clinton - so they go for the party that at least pretends to have enough sense to want to end the War on Terror.
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -11/+45Time for the Libertarians to rise.
  • thespiff, on 01/20/2009, -1/+32The Republican party needs to re-evaluate itself, and make a conscious shift to the right if they want to survive. Some people might read that and think I'm insane, they are crazy right wing as it is. This is simply not true. The Neo-Conservative ideology which has dominated the last 8 years is not a Conservative ideology. It is a hawkish philosophy that supports itself via a powerful executive branch.

    Real conservatives were harrassing Clinton every time he intervened in a minor conflict in a poor country because "We aren't the police of the World." Neo-Conservatives invaded Iraq for regime change. Conservatives cut taxes and cut spending. Neo-Conservatives cut taxes and increase spending.

    Republicans don't need to become Libertarians, but they need to head back in that direction a ways. Their current favored ideology is a failed one and really cannot hold up to the scrutiny of any legitimate political scientist. It's just not a reasonable way to run a country.

  • CCoburn3, on 01/20/2009, -0/+31I have to agree with you there. GWB grew government faster than any previous president -- except possibly FDR. The GOP congress spent more money than ANY has ever done before -- bar none.

    You are also correct that the American people are fed up with sending sons & daughters to die for the freedom of a bunch of people who will not lift a finger to protect their own families.

    The Democrats are seen as having two advantages. (1) At least they don't lie about being the party of smaller government like the GOP does. (2) They are willing to lie about wanting to stop this insane war. (They won't actually do it, but they are willing to say they will.)
  • pintomp3, on 01/20/2009, -4/+35Try dropping the religious fundamentalism and other culture wars.
  • zacharytelschow, on 01/20/2009, -0/+29"It's not because people are less interested in "smaller government" - it's that the GOP NO LONGER STANDS FOR THAT."

    Bingo.
  • falstaff, on 01/20/2009, -2/+28As of the past 4+ years, the GOP is split between the southern GOP (god, guns, gays) paradigm and the western GOP (highly libertarian).
  • EMFK, on 01/20/2009, -2/+28These things are cyclic. In today and out tomorrow. In four years, we'll still have the same two party system and the same complaints. This is America and we always rail about changing things in this 'heated' political climate. As the saying goes, 'when all else is said and done, more will be said than done'. Welcome to America! :-)

    This is somewhat off topic, but I think this may highlight something Pat and others haven't quite understood.

    As I was outside this morning, I noticed my neighbor putting up an American flag. The flag is new, crisp, and vibrant. I was struck by the very ocassion because my neighbor is not usually one for dramatics, flair, or 'patriotic displays' as he always put it. As we were chatting this morning, he had a hard time expressing what he felt about today. For him, Obama's Presidency is a victory for all the 'past wrongs' done to black people in this country. It isn't about 'change' due to the political climate---it's about seeing someone that looks like you make it to an 'unattainable' place in America. As he put it, "we've finally arrived in this country".

    This in a nutshell is what today is for many people like my neighbor. I've lived elsewhere in places where people that look like me run the country. Nothing but disappointment and aggravation, but that's another tale for another day. No political party could overcome the feelings of my neighbor when he voted and when he gets to see someone like himself take the Oath. Though I didn't vote for Obama, I hope he doesn't disappoint my neighbor. He might not know his name, but he's given my neighbor something he was obviously missing----a feeling of belonging. I have never felt this way ever because I've always felt I belonged in America and I've always been proud no matter who leads the country.

    He left me by saying, "one day someone brown will lead this country and you'll understand". As I told him, "Good lord---you don't know what you're asking for". And with that we shared a laugh that hasn't been there since the election.
  • lynchjos, on 01/20/2009, -6/+30Their biggest problem is they're PHONY! Even evangelicals have begun to see it.

    For a people so steeped in Jesus talk, the Republicans turned out to be some of the most selfish, vindictive, judgmental, manipulative, hypocritical, venomous, belligerent, incompetent, reckless, truth-twisting, partisan, mean-spirited, unscrupulous, calculating, Machiavellian, close-minded, smug, self-righteous A-holes who have ever controlled this country.

    I can't quite remember - which book of the New Testament was it that Jesus disenfranchised his followers?
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -2/+25FDR's dream for the DNC was to end the Roosevelt Coalition (Northern Liberal+ Southern Conservative Dems) and instead move towards Northern Liberals with Midwestern and Western Independents. These people are moving in that direction and the upshot is the eventual death of the GOP as a national force. The RNC basically made the proverbial deal with the devil in the 80's by bringing on the Evangelicals, who really have very little in common with the Goldwater Republicans, it was a way of cobbling together a majority, but the neo-cons brought it all down because they were basically representative of the worst of all aspects of the GOP. I think two parties will emerge from all of this: a Dixiecrat type southern focused party and a Libertarian leaning party. Neither will have a great deal of influence in the short run, and I dare say the Evangelicals might have seen their last days of ral influence with an administration.

    Another real demographic that will make or break either party is the latino vote, and the RNC isn't real popular with them
  • CCoburn3, on 01/20/2009, -11/+33I really love people who say that if the GOP wants to get elected, they need to adopt the positions of the Democrats. Bush I did it & lost. Dole did it & lost. Bush II did it & won -- but only because the Democrats ran really lousy candidates. McCain was drubbed for trying to be more Democrat than Hillary.

    If the GOP wants to appeal to the electorate, they need to appeal to those peop0le (the majority as it turns out) who are not represented by the current socialist power structure. If they want to win, they need someone with positions like Ron Paul, but with enough fight in them to run an effective campaign.
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -2/+19No, Bush beat even FDR & LBJ. NOBODY in Presidential history has been fiscally more of a failure. NOBODY. But you are TOTALLY right about the Dems' advantages. Sigh. Ron Paul told us so.
  • ousthouse, on 01/21/2009, -0/+16Pat Buchanan makes the front page of digg?

    ...and it's on the day Obama becomes president?

    Digg is weird.
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -1/+17Until the Libertarian party educates the dumb-masses, they should take over the Republican party and call themselves conservative Republicans.
  • elnino2783, on 01/21/2009, -1/+17"...because of abortion and aging, the white vote is shrinking as a share of the national vote and the population."

    Really, abortion numbers are so high that republicans are losing out on voters! Friggin ridiculous.

    Pushing a conservative agenda is not the way to prove a point, using actual fact and numbers would help prove a point, but that would be too sesnible and educated to do.
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -2/+17The GOP had all the power they could pull to them selfs the last eight years and what did they do with it? They screwed the country over every way they could in the quest for pure greed! The GOP needs to shut up and pack up their tent it's over and it's going to be over for a long time for them.
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -5/+20Bloomberg is a liberal Democrat. If he runs for national office, he would have the best chance if he ran as a Democrat or an independent.
  • inactive, on 01/21/2009, -1/+15Here is how the GOP can return to power in 4 steps:

    1. Return to being the party of fiscal discipline.
    2. Drop all the religious and big-government "social conservative" *****. No one cares about that crap, and it's dragging down the party.
    3. Lead the effort to end the counter-productive "war on drugs."
    4. Lead efforts to end the import of foreign oil and replace it with clean, alternative energy.

    Of course, in order to do this, the GOP will have to tell religious nuts to take a ***** hike. Either that, or the party will disappear within a decade.
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -7/+21Buried for idiocy. CCoburn is right. If Ron Paul was so bad for blacks, why did he DESPITE the newsletters have more blacks and young folks (by far!!!) supporting him in the primaries? It's about like that other question, if he was so bad on foreign policy, how come the US military supported and supports him so much?? Face it, Dr. Paul was not like the other Republicans in the same way that Dennis Kucinich isn't like the other Democrats. Both represent REAL change, and that scares the media and the power elite which obviously (uh, Obama had dinner with McCain last night, ok?) runs this country.
  • moriarty23, on 01/21/2009, -1/+14So Pat's reasons for the GOP decline are:
    1. Abortion
    2. illegal immigrants
    3. Brown People
    4.Academia

    The real reason that the GOP is falling apart is that they can't take responsibility for horrible policy, opting instead to blame abortion, immigrants, and academia.

  • gaqua, on 01/21/2009, -0/+12His entire argument is basically shaking his fist angrily at poor people and immigrants for voting Democrat.

    He doesn't seem to get that a lot of relatively middle-class white people vote Democrat, too.

    Terrible article.
  • BigVi, on 01/21/2009, -5/+17For being a "part of the south" I love how you picked someone from Alaska as your example. I completely agree with your base argument though.

    For me its as simple as this:

    Democrats - Tax the hell out of people over 18.
    Republicans - Tax the hell out of people under 18/unborn through deficits.

    The right only cares about spending when the Dems are in control.
  • inactive, on 01/21/2009, -0/+12It used to stand for Grand Old Party. Lately it's been changed to Greedy Old Perverts.
  • billraydrums, on 01/21/2009, -3/+14The GOP needs to go ahead and move aside. Their brand has been forever tarnished by W, and if that weren't enough, Cheney drove the final nail in.

    Libertarian party, anyone? Greens? Remember the Whigs? They were a viable 3rd party for a number of years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_St ...

    Parties can deprecate. GOP ought to.
  • Dumbledorito, on 01/21/2009, -2/+13The Libertarian platform has to address something now more than ever: Regulation.

    All I hear from them is how abolishing any kind of oversight in business will somehow result in honest businesses that deal fairly, consumers who somehow have all the information about said businesses with which to make decisions, and that greed, cheating, and hiding such acts away from the public will somehow not have any bearing. Some even go so far to assume the same about campaign regulations, complaining that on the one hand we have bought-and-sold politicians, but that if we let unlimited donations to coffers without any disclosure, honest dealing will reign in spite of a special interest having dumped a boatload of cash on their doorstep.

    It's a bit like Marxism, really. It might describe how things are unjust or in some way flawed, but the solution relies upon a view of how people behave that wouldn't be believable in a fairy tale. They're also the one who will point to a small business owner that couldn't afford to comply with some OSHA reg, and this somehow means that banking and investment should have no standards of practice or have any kind of transparency.
  • altgeeky1, on 01/21/2009, -0/+11They NEED that.

    Take that social issue away, and you'd be left with CEO- and importer centric economic platform that destroys the middle class and union jobs.

    How many Ohioans do you think would have voted for Bush if THAT platform were not trojaned inside social culture wars, such as "Gays marrying"? The only thing that trumps economic self interest is bigotry. That's how the GOP builds a coalition of "Reagan democrats" on social issues, with Manhattan elite writing the economic policy.
  • kublerross, on 01/21/2009, -3/+14"But because of abortion and aging, the white vote is shrinking as a share of the national vote and the population."

    Doesn't sound very bright to me, more like a thinly veiled xenophobic racist anti-abortion rant.

    It is a man of little class who blames all his problems on others. Despite Pat's ideas, most white people I know are more liberal than the minorities I know, especially hispanics.
  • crackwassist, on 01/20/2009, -8/+18how did we turn this country into hell while you guys held the presidency and congress? you're giving us a lot of credit for not having been in power for six years. And your pure free market system did a bang up job let me tell you.

    and btw, if the gop goes back to their economic roots and drops god and guns as their ideological foundation then I will welcome them back into the realm of reasoned and considered debate. Until then you all can just stfu and gtfo.
  • inactive, on 01/20/2009, -0/+10Thank you. This is one of those times I'd pay to have my diggs worth 10X. :)
  • Anim8ir, on 01/20/2009, -12/+22It's all about relevancy. Currently the GOP is JUST AS, give or take a few elected members, relevant as the Dems. They need to do something different to maintain relevancy in the coming years (elections). Corporations deal with this all the time. One day you're on the top the next day your competitor is on top. You must constantly re-invent yourself to remain relevant. In the past years the GOP seems to have become complacent which has caused them to lose ground (market share) and the public responded. If they don't reinvent themselves now they could literally become the Grand OLD Party. But what do I know.....I'm drunk.....
  • JigoroKano, on 01/20/2009, -10/+20Lol at his notions of counterculture orthodoxy in academia. Buchanan is smart enough and far out enough to make some interesting comments from time to time, but he is also a bit out of touch himself. He writes articles in favor of intelligent design for god sake:
    http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050808-darwi ...
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
    Let alone all the bizarre things he has said on race, like that Africans should have been thankful for being brought to America so they could be converted to Christianity.

    It's not counterculture that makes young people believe in things like biological evolution and civil rights, it's the advancement of science and civilization.
    He is probably correct in that there are demographic reasons the GOP is losing, but his own social conservatism is part of the problem too.
  • czernel, on 01/21/2009, -1/+11Neocon policies are not conservative, but are continually being sold by the GOP as conservative. If the GOP starts listening to people like RON PAUL and stop alienating true conservatives, perhaps the party will not become irrelevant in the years to come.
  • lordmike, on 01/21/2009, -0/+10Leave it to Pat Buchannan to be able to simultaneously criticize his party's failures and yet smear Democrats at the same time... very well played... not many people could pull that off!
  • niradg, on 01/21/2009, -1/+11If you think things are bad for the GOP now, just imagine how much different the electorate will be 8 years from now. The Republican party's "base" is dying off.
  • venusflytrap09, on 01/21/2009, -0/+10I'm a Libertarian and I agree with Dumbledorito. Libertarians do have a big PR problem. Too many of us are cranky, pessimistic, alarmist & downright condescending. I have to admit I struggle with this myself. When someone asks me a question about a particular position, I often want to start off with "Well, if you'd read the constitution..."

    Another PR problem is that we appear too old fashioned. Yes, we do revere this nations founders. But, constantly referring to them & plastering their portraits all over our websites make us appear to be stuck in the past. We need a young, hip, charismatic leader who can break our message down into sound bites. Ron Paul did a great job getting is some attention. But, giving kids a reading list isn't going to work. We've got to get with the times.
  • vbullinger, on 01/20/2009, -1/+11This really is the best idea, to be honest. They'd have a better shot at winning things, and they'd have a lot of ears to listen to their message.
  • inactive, on 01/21/2009, -8/+17The GOP is heading like a speedtrain into extinction. The way of the Dodo bird.

    The Republican party will be half the size of the B.C. Marijuana Party ticket by 2010.

    Like you BigMac eating inbreds always say, "I'm Loving It!"

    BTW, slapping a yellow magnet on your gas-guzzling SUV in the middle of a war for oil just makes you look like a giant prick.
  • Pyros7, on 01/21/2009, -0/+9My thoughts exactly. The republicans used to have people like myself who were drawn to their smaller government, lower taxes platform. It's been a good run but after a few decades even die hard republicans are realizing that their party has failed every step of the way on that account.

    Why else would I vote for a republican? I don't give a ***** about gay marriage, I don't care if a woman terminates her pregnancy the day after unprotected sex, I'm a HUGE fan of birth control. Creationism belongs in mythology class, not biology.

    There's nothing left of the Republican party, they may as well rename it the Fundamentalist Christian Conservative party and be done with it.
  • chall85, on 01/21/2009, -0/+8"But because of abortion and aging, the white vote is shrinking as a share of the national vote and the population."

    uh, what?!
  • crackwassist, on 01/20/2009, -12/+20i'm liberal as hell and pat is crazy as a loon on some issues but I just love him.

    oh, and articles about how ***** the gop will be for years to come is my new porn.
  • Dustin00, on 01/21/2009, -0/+8"the country is turning away from the GOP creed of small government and low taxes. Why?"

    Cuz the GOP gave up on the idea of small government circa 1982.

    My entire life the GOP has fought to lower taxes for the top 10% richest people while creating a level of national debt unheard of in the history of the world.

    Why did the GOP turn away from its own creed?
  • yosserhughes, on 01/21/2009, -1/+9Ah so it's those damned immigrants fault again, huh?

    Shoulda guessed it.
  • tech42er, on 01/21/2009, -0/+8Exactly. People attacked me for voting for Obama since I'm generally libertarian, but what was I going to do, vote for McCain? I don't want the evangelicals running the country and enshrining their moral views in law and I sure as hell don't want the government thinking it's invulnerable like during the Bush years. Yes, Obama will slightly increase the tax rate and expand government, but the rate change is fairly tiny (a couple percentage points higher for those making over 250K and a couple lower for those making under 250K) and he'll hopefully cut out a lot of the pork and make government more accountable. He'll also stop "moral initiatives", money for "abstinence-only education", the push to ban gay marriage, and the expansion of the drug war. If McCain won, he'd continue to expand the reach and size of the government, increase spending, and retard social progress. As a libertarian, Obama was by far the better choice. Barr and Paul were great, but I felt it was more important to ensure Obama won and McCain (and god forbid Palin) didn't get into the whitehouse then make a statmeent affirming my libertarian beliefs. For what it's worth, I voted for Paul in the primaries. But the general election was just too important. Obama's certainly not my ideal candidate, but I think he really can help get this country back on the right path.
  • inactive, on 01/21/2009, -0/+7Hey I didn't say they WOULD do it, I just said that this would work.
  • rz8472, on 01/21/2009, -1/+8Maybe because those counties only had 20 people in it, boot.
  • TigerStar337, on 01/21/2009, -0/+7Why do the Republicans hate America? They have been in power the last 30 of the past 40 years. What has happened? The deficit is now at $10 trillion dollars (Republicans pride themselves as being fiscal), all individual freedoms have been taken away (patriotism is the enemy of freedom), only the rich can now afford a University education, and there is no middle class because their jobs have moved out of the USA. Why do the Republicans hate the middle class people? Why do middle class people vote for Republicans after they have done nothing to help them? It is crazy. Oh, well. As long as McDonald's has their Shamrock Shake in March, the Americans are happy.
  • tajitj, on 01/20/2009, -1/+8Social issues will not lead the GOP to victory, you nailed it. Economics, less spending and less market intervention is the only thing they could win on.
    We have a chance to win the social liberals because Obama is only giving lip service to some issues.
  • kublerross, on 01/21/2009, -4/+11Wow, do you know what socialism is? We live in a state of corporate control and corporate welfare. Obama wont change a thing, because its not just the government thats broken, its our entire society.
  • cubicledrone, on 01/21/2009, -1/+8"You must constantly re-invent yourself to remain relevant."

    That's Powerpoint thinking, and it's *****. Consistent quality and hard work don't have to be re-invented.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 209 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.