To follow on from two posts on the GOP from this morning (here and here) let me distill down the situation to three basic options that I think face the GOP at the moment

Option One (which is directly the point of the posts this morning): broaden its appeal, which means, among other things, having a moderate wing. That has to be room in a large party in a two-party system to welcome people like Colin Powell, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and the like. If not, we move to option two,

Option Two: if Republicans seriously want a party that purges itself of it Specters and Powells, then it is going to have to content itself with being a minority party, especially in the House of Representatives, and perhaps in regards to the Electoral College.

Option Three: if the GOP really does wish to be a more ideologically pure party (i.e., eschewing option 1), then it ought to go beyond simply being satisfied with being perpetually second to the Democrats and push for electoral reform in the guise of proportional representation, especially (as noted in the comments to a prior post) for the House of Representatives. This would not give them majority status, but it would have the effect, over time, of fostering a multi-party system in the US and would allow them the opportunity to be as ideologically pure as they would like while also creating the likelihood of coalition partners with which it could work on specific legislation, if not for leadership in the legislature. The irony is, however, that PR is typically viewed unfavorably (if not significant reform in general) by Republicans, so such a course of action is unlikely. A move to PR would likely foster in the US at least three moderate sized parties of liberal, moderate and social conservative stripes as well as allow a number of smaller parties (such as the Greens and Libertarians) to achieve representation.

The likelihood is that some version of option 1 will come to fruition, whether hardcore conservatives like it or not. What will likely happen is that as difficulties emerge under Democratic governance (as always happens to whomever is in charge), the equilibrium will shift towards the Reps as the only other game in town–but for the Reps to capitalize, they will have to engage in some big-tent-ish (so to speak).

3 Responses to “Options for the GOP”

1. d.eris Says:
   May 12th, 2024 at 6:37 pm

   If option two, then the GOP will likely become the third party in many moderate-to-liberal districts, and potentially end up spoiling elections for Democrats, breaking open the two-party system. This is the best option for the good of the country.

2. Max Lybbert Says:
   May 13th, 2024 at 2:37 pm

   I agree that your three options are on the table, but I have a hard time agreeing with the outcomes.

   I would call Option 1 the Kerry option: “we would do the same thing the Democrats did, but we would have done it better.” I honestly don’t see any way this would work any better for the Republicans than it did for Kerry ( http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-10-24-1.html ):

   What a strange world Kerry lives in. He has a plan for everything, but can never tell us what it is. … We just have to take it on faith that his plan will be wonderful and makes us all happy and thin. …

   Here’s the gist of Kerry’s secret plans: Whatever Bush did, Kerry would have done differently.

   But what I don’t get is: If Bush is out of office and Kerry is in, how will Kerry know what Bush would have done so that he can do the opposite?

   Kerry has carefully created himself as the “UnBush.” So in the absence of Bush, will Kerry continue to exist?

   Nixon, Ford, Eisenhower, etc. successfully made this point. Clinton did, too, if you count his triangulation (welfare reform, NAFTA, balanced budgets).

   I think Option 2 would be more like “we would never make the same mistakes the Democrats did because we view the world fundamentally differently.” It seems more true to the legacy of Reagan than to the legacy of Ford or Eisenhower. And it seems more likely to be embraced when there are fundamental problems with carrying out the Democratic agenda. “We would never have put compensation caps in place, nor would we have taxed US-based companies on money they made overseas and that remained overseas, so we wouldn’t have the problem of multinational companies reincorporating overseas.” vs. “We would have made our compensation caps and our taxes less onerous.” McCain tried Option 1, and I don’t see any reason to keep trying it.

   And I think Option 3 would be interesting, but agree it would never come to pass.

3. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Republicans, RINOs, And The 1994 Election Says:
   May 14th, 2024 at 6:59 am

   [...] to liberty and there is something to be said for ideological purity, but as Steven Taylor notes, a demand for ideological purity will lead the GOP to disaster: [L]et me distill down the situation to three basic options that I think face the GOP at the [...]

Leave a Reply