DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-ar ... n?page=0,0

I thought this was an interesting article and would like some feedback from our more moderate republicans, like Bob and Jason, if they have time to peruse it.

It's a decent article, but I think there is a major factor that doesn't get a lot of play in it. That is the rise of rightwing media, more specifically the growth of right wing talk radio, its TV equivalent in Fox News, and a spread of that model from there to other venues. I view that as one of the, possibility thee, single most important political story of the past generation. Right wing media just doesn't respond to the political views in its audience, it symbiotically helps to create them. The article is quite correct to look at an uneven balance in activism among the different ideological factions within the Republican party, but it complete misses the boat on how much power and influence rightwing media personalities collectively have on the direction of the party. The reason this is the case is that the public's political opinions tend to be not thoughtfully held and are easily persuadable by those with whom they identify.

So, for example, the fact that rightwing media's "infotainment" model is very much driven by a shock-jock mentality by its nature creates a radicalizing influence. There's a concept in political science called the Overton window. Wiki correctly describes it thusly:

"The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range of ideas that the public will find acceptable, and that states that the political viability of an idea is defined primarily by this rather than by politicians' individual preferences.[1] It is named for its originator, Joseph P. Overton,[2] a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.[3] At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office."

It turns out that the Overton Window can by pushed to and fro by certain factors. One major factor that can push it is people's tendency to engage in the fallacy of moderation. People are cognitively biased to think that the middle-ground between two extremes is a more reasonable position. So if shock jocks (Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.) are saying absolutely off the wall things to get a reaction out of people, the effect is to not cause people to adopt those views, but rather shift the Overton window closer to them. It helps define the space for what constitutes the extreme ends of the spectrum. It turns out that hearing someone constantly preaching for the execution of Muslims makes people more willing to accept forced deportation. But, as shock jocks and politicians on their shows have to continually go more radical to get attention, the effect is increasing radicalization. This has been happening in rightwing media for quite some time now, and its effects are apparent. It's not simply that rightwing media is powerful because there's a ready-made radical conservative audience engaged enough to want to listen to it; it's helping to create and expand that audience.

From the article's last page:

THE MODERATES, either in exile or in a state of permanent denial, believe that their day will eventually come. Ultimately, they are probably right about this. The GOP cannot keep moving rightward indefinitely.

The GOP is going to have to move towards the center to survive. The Republican base is literally dying, and American demographics are shifting away from a white-centric society. The new generation of Americans is less religious, more tolerant of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles of all sorts, and more (shall we say) "colorful" than the Baby Boomers they'll replace. The social wedge issues that have proved so useful for Republicans the past thirty years will have to be abandoned if they wish to remain a viable party.

But there is a color blind economic argument to be made for fiscal conservatism. Frankly if they'd make it I would be right there with them if they'd commit to less defense spending and bellicose foreign policy and a moderate and fair tax system where the rich pay their fair share. I also would like a focus on infrastructure, technology (especially renewable energy), education, and a rational health care system.

Also an actual wall between church and state that respects all people's right to live peacefully with their neighbors and stops the legislation of morality and an actual respect for the freedom of the individual to act how they would, not just lip service to mask the oppression of minorities and less powerful political demographics.

If Republicans could make that argument while allowing women to make their own reproductive path and gay people at least the same secular spousal rights as heterosexuals coupled with an end to the anti-science insanity of the current Republican party I would probably be right there with them.

If the Republican party doesn't pivot towards the center on immigration, gay rights, and women's health care rights at a minimum they will wither. If that happens I imagine the Democratic party will faction into conservative and liberal wings with conservative Democrats continuing to drip into the Republican party.

Hispanics are a soft target for the Republican party because of their streak of social conservatism and Republican's split views on immigration reform. Rove's strategy for a generational, enduring Republican majority was predicated on capturing a substantial portion of the Hispanic population by having Bush be immigration friendly. Unfortunately for them, the anti-immigration wing of the party murdered that. So now it's not clear what Republicans are going to do as the demographics continue to shift. A president Romney, who I suspect is personally quite friendly to open immigration, could still employ the Rove strategy, but time is running out because of the Arizona's of the country.

EAllusion wrote:Hispanics are a soft target for the Republican party because of their streak of social conservatism and Republican's split views on immigration reform. Rove's strategy for a generational, enduring Republican majority was predicated on capturing a substantial portion of the Hispanic population by having Bush be immigration friendly. Unfortunately for them, the anti-immigration wing of the party murdered that. So now it's not clear what Republicans are going to do as the demographics continue to shift. A president Romney, who I suspect is personally quite friendly to open immigration, could still employ the Rove strategy, but time is running out because of the Arizona's of the country.

Indeed. Another three or four election cycles (if not sooner) and Texas will be a tossup state. When that happens the Republican party will no longer be effective except to fight a long defeat of obstructionism for the Solid South, the most conservative Great Plains states, and the Mountain West.

beastie wrote:http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/108150/the-revolution-eats-its-own?page=0,0

I thought this was an interesting article and would like some feedback from our more moderate republicans, like Bob and Jason, if they have time to peruse it.

I'm not a moderate. I'm a conservative and quite happy to say so. Has the party moved to the right? Unquestionably. Has it been taken over by Obama-hating cryptofascist religious fanatics? No. That image makes for effective campaign ads and Daily Show jokes. But it's not so.

We've always had people like the Eagle Forum and Focus on the Family, and from what I have seen in my personal experience, they aren't much more powerful than they were before. The Democrats have likewise always had their Pete Starks and Cynthia McKinneys, yet no one is saying they are the face of the Democratic party. In my view, both parties have expelled a lot of their moderates, but neither party is as radicalized as people imagine.

Bob Loblaw wrote:We've always had people like the Eagle Forum and Focus on the Family, and from what I have seen in my personal experience, they aren't much more powerful than they were before.

That's completely untrue, though. They are significantly more influential than they were before. Moral majority types are ascendant and vastly more influential than they were in 1988. The Republican primaries consisted of Mitt Romney bending over backwards to pander to those groups and every other major nominee candidate being an example of them with the exception of Paul. The second place finisher, Santorum, is the Eagle Forum sprung to life. McKinney is in no way the equivalent of this on the Democratic side.

Not that long ago Bob you asserted that birthers were some crazy fringe of the party. When I pointed out that only a 3rd of Republican primary voters actually thought Obama was a native born US citizen, you didn't respond. Less than half of all Republicans think he is a Christian, with about a third thinking he is a Muslim. Over two-thirds of Republicans think Obama is a socialist/marxist. Yet you continue to describe the Obama as pinko-commie foreigner Muslim types as an extreme fringe group. They are the backbone of the party. The Droopy/BCSpace types you keep calling fringe are far more representative of the average Republican, especially those engaged with politics, than you are.

The modern Republican party is much more World Net Daily than it is William F. Buckley, and you seem to be denial about this.

I know there's a significant crackpot wing in the party, just as there is in the Democratic party. More than half of Democrats surveyed in 2006 said they thought it was likely Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time. We all have our nutjobs.

Beastie I thought the article was very interesting and made some very valid points. However the New Republic is not necessarily unbiased in how they portray things. I noted another article while reading the one you linked where the author thought Biden's ludicrous attempt to pull a Lloyd Bensten on Ryan. That author was praising Biden for his rude and inapplicable comment of "So you think you are John Kennedy now." The New Republic is more a liberal publication.

Never the less they make some valid points. The right in the republican party has become more right. And they may have more control. I disagree that it has taken over the party. Romney really is more moderate and McCain is as well. Bush was no conservative. Nixon allegedly said to get the nomination you run to the right. To win the presidency you move to the middle.

Personally I think the republican party is no more run by the right than you likely do that the democrats are from the left. What about the blue dogs? How much influence in their party do they have? The two most powerful democrats outside the president-Pelosisi and Reid are in my opinion, left wing hacks. And in 2008 Obama certainly ran farther to the left then it seems he has attempted to govern.

Both parties seem more polarized than I can recall in my adult life. This I think is the core of the problem.