An interesting article in "Time"

[scholar_vit]

An one party rule is bad: it corrupts the country and the party in power. The quesiton is, can the current Republican party be an effective check on Democrats? The recent Time article by Michael Grunwald seems to answer this question negatively.

The article refutes the Democratic canard that Republicans have no ideas. Republicans actually have plenty of ideas. The problem is, these ideas cannot win a majority. An important example is the GOP alternative budget. Besides being a p.r. disaster (setting the release of numbers on April 1 was a real gaffe), it was too radical for the huge majority of Ameircans: It's a radical document, making Bush's tax cuts permanent while adding about $3 trillion in new tax cuts skewed toward the rich. It would replace almost all the stimulus — including tax cuts for workers as well as spending on schools, infrastructure and clean energy — with a capital gains–tax holiday for investors. Oh, and it would shrink the budget by replacing Medicare with vouchers, turning Medicaid into block grants, means-testing Social Security and freezing everything else except defense and veterans' spending for five years, putting programs for food safety, financial regulation, flu vaccines and every other sacred government cow on the potential chopping block.

The author describes the "death spiral", known in the control theory as positive feedback: when GOP becomes more radical, centrists like 200,000 PA voters including Sen. Specter leave the party. The remaining true believers make the party even more radical, causing even more moderates flee. This might be ok of Rush Limbaugh: he is here for money, and his audience pays. However, party is different from a sect, and wacos never have a chance to become a political force. Rush would be happy to become a clone of Rev. Moon; is this a palatable future for other GOP leaders?

It seems GOP might be on the verge of extinction. Maybe a schism in the Democratic party is the way to return to a two-party system.

Comments

[scholar-vit.livejournal.com]

I have no idea where does arbat takes his data from. Here is the data about young voters preferences from Pew: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/813/gen-dems. Look at the chart: in 2004 Dems had 51:40 advantage in party identification. What "conservative generation" we are talking about?! Right now the split is 58:33. The last time Republicans got such advantage among young voters was Reagan's election. Let us face it: since George H. W. Bush Dems consistently overpoll GOP in this demographics.

There was an interesting article about young voters here: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/young_voters_gop_and_race.php. It discusses a number of bad choices made by Republicans in last years. Basically they sacrificed long term strategy for short term advantages.

I would be happy if this proves to be wrong: we need a viable conservative option for the health of the country. However right now I do not see how GOP can overcome several decades of stupid tricks.

[cheeha.livejournal.com]

we need a viable conservative option for the health of the country

Absolutely! И я уверена, что оно есть (типа, у Давида Брукса) и оно проявится, когда пройдёт истерика. Вот окончится история с Алом Франкеном, они оплачут свои потери и вернутся к реальности. И с тем же Спектором наладят контакты, и к синим псам начнут подъезжать, а в итоге сыграют свою жизненноважную роль тормозов.