Posted on 04/21/2009 1:44:49 PM PDT by americanophile
Political commentator Fareed Zakaria told a University of Oklahoma gathering that the Republican Party needs to grow for the good of the country.
Zakaria, seen regularly on CNN and ABC News and the editor of all Newsweek international editions, was not simply playing up to his red-state audience.
He said the GOP is becoming a regional party controlled by a base dominated by radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, whose average listener is age 67.
Meanwhile, a majority of people younger than 30, working women, college graduates and minorities — all demographics on the upswing — voted Democrat in the last election.
Zakaria said the trend is pointing to a vocal Republican base that’s shrinking coupled with an emboldened Democratic Party that feels it no longer needs moderates from either party.
"We’re ending up in a 1½-party system, and that’s not healthy,” he said Monday at an OU President’s Associates dinner. "We need a two-party system, and that only happens if the Republican appeal expands.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
Which “heavy weight” politicians not only supported the Tea Parties but has also a proven record of supporting the Constitution? Find them and we find a leader.
No. I don't think that the GOP should soften it's positions on social issues. Certainly not on abortion - I actaully think as the younger people come of voting age, anti-abortion platforms will work in favor of the GOP. Against all other social issue trends, the youth are becoming increasingly un-supportive of abortion and especially of abortion on demand. Believe me, NOW and the other pro-abortion groups are keenly aware of this.
As for reaching out and persuading or even identifying with the youth, I really don't have any good ideas on how to do it, nor have I really heard any else with any good ideas. But, my wife and I both spent a considerable amount of time on college campuses last fall campaigning for McCain and acting as advisers to GOP groups on campus. I can promise you, as someone who graduated from college in the early 80s, the environment on campus to today for Republicans is abysmal in comparison.
The liberals have been exceedingly successful at painting the GOP as the party of hate, bigotry and intolerance. That will not be overcome for some time and not without a herculean effort. I just don't see any desire or drive for grass-roots conservatives to engage these younger voters and I'm afraid that could be a mortal mistake.
Define Hispanics. The Democrats created the artificial category of “Hispanics” in the 1970s as a way to create another class of victims, which they could imbue with special rights and privileges, including affirmative action and minority business set asides. The result is another minority group that votes Democrat. It doesn’t matter that 51 percent of Hispanics consider themselves white. The Census Bureau has even created another phony category called “non-Hispanic whites,” which are now 66 percent of the population and will be 50 percent in 2042. The reality is that whites will still be more than 70 percent of the population in 2042.
The country has seen a rise in the median age for well over 30 years, but many are projecting that the median age very well could start to decline by the end of the decade.
Nonsense. Take a look a this from the Bureau of the Census released in August 2008:An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury
And, while the older set may be come increasingly disgusted with Obama and his policies, the older set will become an increasingly irrelevant demographic as it shrinks - yes shrinks - in relative size to other demographics.
That is just factually wrong. Even immigrants and minorites age. Our fertility rate is 2.1, i.e., replacement level. Immigration accounts for 75% of our population increase. The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U. S. will be foreign-born.
Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 306 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 133 million to 439 million
I would take you notation of Obama's Approval Index as a sign that the country is still, and probably will continue to be deeply polarized. And while Obama may end up being an extremely polarizing figure, he still maintains a healthy approval rating, although it certainly has declined since he's taken office.
He has been in office 100 days. His popularity has declined faster than any recent President. If we are hit with another 9/11 terrorist attack, it will plummet like a stone. And the nation has taken on a huge increase in our national debt. Currently, the costs to service the national debt amount to $400 billion a year, the third highest line item in the federal budget after the entitlement programs and DOD. In less than a decade the debt servicing costs will be over $800 billion a year. The US will see a decline in our standard of living and we will have to make the hard choice between guns and butter.
Lastly, in less than 20 months, all of this will be academic as we will have lived through another mid-term election by that time. If the GOP can mount a legitimate come-back and greatly reduce the Dems advantage in the House and weaken the majority in the Senate, all the GOP and conservative hand wringing will have proven to have been premature. If, on the other hand, Obama is successful in doing what only Roosevelt has done in the last 120 years - increasing his majorities in his first mid-term election - then the GOP will have very real, very deep and very troubling legitimate concerns about its future relevance.
Agree, but you are wrong about Roosevelt being the only one to increase his majorities in his first mid-term election. George W. Bush did it as well.
No, we're not. The GOP owned the world in 1994, then it decided it wanted to be just like the Democrats, and now we see the results.
You're right. I wonder why your post was ignored until I came along.
The Democrats have used the rapidly changing demographics of this country, the product of immigration, to stampede many Republican politicians and elites to conclude that the party must “adapt or die” as Michael Barone stated, on the issue of immigration. The leaders of extremist Hispanic ethnic groups trumpet their growing political power and the Bureau of Census projections that by 2050, one in 3 residents of this country will be Hispanic. The problem is that if the Republican Party does adapt to become more like the Democrat Party, it will die.
Republicans are deluded if they believe that altering their views on immigration and amnesty will win them more Hispanic votes. Ronald Reagan signed a “one-time” amnesty in 1986, but that did not change the fact that the majority of Hispanics still vote Democrat. The reality is that historically the majority of immigrants, not only Hispanics, vote Democrat. Unless the Republican Party can slow down the immigration numbers, it will be the permanent minority party or become just another wing of the Democrat Party.
The Democrats want to be known as the party of minorities. They cultivate that image. But it can be a two-edged sword given the changing demographics in this country. With our first black President and the fact that by 2023, just 14 years from now, half of the children 18 and under will be classified as minorities, it will become harder and harder to defend affirmative action and minority business set asides, especially among white Democrats. The absurdity of these programs will become more and more apparent.
For example, the Virginia Department of Minority Business defines a minority individual as “an individual who is a citizen of the United States or a non-citizen who is in full compliance with United States immigration law and who satisfies one or more of the following definitions:”
1.“African American” means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Africa and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part.
2.“Asian American” means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands, including but not limited to Japan, China, Vietnam, Samoa, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, Northern Mariana, the Philippines, a U.S. territory of the Pacific, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part.
3. “Hispanic American” means a person having origins in any of the Spanish-speaking peoples of Mexico, South or Central America, or the Caribbean Islands or other Spanish or Portuguese cultures and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part.
The Republicans need to expose the Democrats as the real racists and bigots who provide people, including newly arrived immigrants, with special rights and privileges based on race, ethnicity, and gender. The definitions of Hispanic and Asian under the Virginia law are ludicrous. They make no sense. What do Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Filipinos have in common except being from the same geographic region of the globe? Similarly, “Hispanics” encompass all of Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula, i.e., the former colonialists. These types of classifications are reminiscent of those under apartheid in South Africa, which had four main groups with a number of sub-groups and even “honorary whites.” Republicans should take the lead in abolishing these discriminatory programs in post-racial America and use immigration as an example of the unfairness of these laws.
There are other significant demographic changes that transcend race and ethnicity. By 2030 one in every 5 residents of this country will be 65 and over. The vast majority of these people will be on fixed incomes with Social Security being a major portion of their retirement income. As a result, taxes will become more and more of a concern among older voters. State and local taxes will have to fund much of the education and social welfare costs for immigrants and their children as the U.S. population continues to increase. Since the federal government only funds about 13 percent of the education costs with state and local governments funding the rest through mainly property taxes, an aging population on fixed incomes will balk at increased rates of taxation. And senior citizens vote at a higher percentage than younger voters. Even immigrants grow old and will vote their pocketbook.
And then there are younger voters who must bear the brunt of the current out of control federal spending that will balloon the current debt servicing costs that currently consume 17 cents out of every federal dollar. With entitlement programs increasing to more than half of the federal budget, it will leave declining amounts of money for discretionary items, including defense. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree, today it is 3.3, and by 2030 it will be 2 workers for every retiree. As a result, the young will also be concerned about taxes and the costs of mass immigration that will require huge amounts of money for increased infrastructure requirements, higher energy needs, schools, hospitals, water treatment and sewage plants, etc. that will be needed for a nation approaching half a billion people and is the world’s biggest debtor nation.
Then you and I are on the same page.
No it did not.
I had just started voting then, and was a conservative Christian, as I am now.
His focus was equally on Pro-life as it was on limited and small government.
Your contention that the country is more socially liberal today is a media creation only.
Every state that has put a Heterosexual ballot issue for a vote proves my point, as well as, the continual move by the electorate as a whole to pro-life issues as shown by countless number of polls.
Well, yeah.... we're kinda short of that kind of person at the moment. Modern politics tends to reward narcissism and graft, rather than intellectual depth and real-world abilities. Which works great for Democrats, but not for a conservative message.
Well, no, the GOP didn't "own the world," we just thought we did. Newt sold a great political gimmick, the Contract for America, and a voting public that was sick of Bill Clinton's crap went for it.
Unfortunately, selling the Contract was not the same as implementing it. Newt was not the man to implement it; and it turned out that support for the Contract was not all that deep after all; and the GOP had no way to counteract the media blizzard. Bill Clinton revived his presidency on the basis of Newt Gingrich's Speakership, and the Contract was not particularly effective in any case.
Since then, the GOP has gradually lost whatever direction it had as various single-issue factions began to tear each other apart, and narcissism and opportunism has supplanted principles.
I think Newt deserves a little more credit than you give him for the Contract with America, after all it brought House Republicans in from the desert after 36 years, no small feat. Without the Contract's success in '94, America would never have seen welfare reform or a balanced budget.
And, Gingrich also deserves some credit for reducing government spending. Sure, spending still rose, but as a percentage of GDP it shrank for the first time in decades. Certainly, a lot of that is because of the fantastic economic growth in the last half of the decade, but I believe the country's robust economic growth was because of policies that Newt helped to shepherd through Congress and make Clinton sign kicking and screaming.
The GOP didn't do itself any favors by impeaching Clinton. It may or may not have been the right thing to do morally or legally, but it turned out to be a disaster politically. I actually think the GOP really started to decline after Gingrich left and when Delay took over in the House. Delay was a tremendous whip, but a horrible leader - the peter principle on full display.
Lastly, I think the media really sharpened their knives with Gingrich and it was an object lesson on how powerful the traditional media really is. Clinton used, abused and destroyed Newt with the help of a very willing accomplices in the media.
Well, I hear a lot of names bandied about here on FR. I don’t have all their records handy but some of the ones I’ve heard of are Demint, Coburn, Pence. Anyone know if they’re involved in the Tea Parties?
The Newt I remember had Bill Clinton's boot prints all over his back.
I think that stat came from the same place Barney Frank and Perez Hilton visit on a regular basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.