lazarus corporation wrote:
Romney, to be fair to him, was gracious in defeat in his concession speech. But then it wasn't Romney himself who lost the Republicans the election, it was the Birthers and the Tea Party and the other nutters (like Trump) who put off so many centrists.
I think that is a very large part of it. I think he also made a mistake during the primaries, in trying to get to the right of Rick Perry on immigration, which further alienated the Hispanic vote. Another problem is lack of party discipline--nut-jobs like Missouri's Akin should have stayed on message instead of mouthing off about the supposed intrusion-countermeasures that women have in their ovaries.
The Republican party is essentially a coalition party--traditionally, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians. In the 60's, a group of leftist intellectuals (chiefly social scientists) broke with the Democratic party over what they perceived as Democratic softness on the USSR, and support for welfare-state programs that do not work (they opposed them because they did not work or did more harm than good, mind you--not because they thought such programs were unconstitutional expansions of federal power. Their objection was practical, rather than principled).
These leftist intellectuals--the neoconservatives--enter the Republican party and rise to prominence and influence, especially in the George W. Bush presidency. They have the old progressive faith in the exporting of Western civilization and liberal democracy that leads directly to the attempt at nation-building in Iraq (marginally successful) and Afghanistan (a squandering of blood and treasure). Today, the Republican party is an uneasy mixture of these four factions. If they want to be a successful party going forward, they need to emphasize the libertarian and fiscally responsible side of things, and put less emphasis on social issues; they also need to make a break with the neoconservative view of American power (our role should be "benevolent global hegemony" according to neocon intellectuals Kristol & Kagan).
lazarus corporation wrote:
The way I see it, if Romney was elected the US would still collapse under a mountain of debt, civil liberties would still be further eroded, and the rule of law would dtill be incrementally abandoned.
Unlikely, or at least
less likely. One of the major objections I have to Obama and the Democratic Party in general, going back to the early 20th century, is their blatant disregard of the Constitution--especially separation of powers. Another major objection I have to Obama is his absolutely reckless spending--I thought Bush spent like a drunk sailor on shore leave. O? He makes Bush look like an amateur. Worse still, he has somehow managed to convince the middle-class that increased taxes for the rich will pay for his lavish and unrestrained spending. They won't--in fact, higher taxes on the rich are a p*ss in the ocean of debt and spending that he (and W., to a much lesser extent) are responsible for. The middle class will feel the hurt.
Another objection I have is the continual interference with the market, both through crony capitalism (Solyndra, for example)
and the bank and auto bailouts, which encourage further risky behavior on the part of banks and auto companies.
lazarus corporation wrote:
AND rights would be stripped from women, from the LGBT community, etc.
I'm sorry my friend, but you have been propagandized. What rights would be stripped from women? The answer is none--not even abortion, which is
de facto law in this country. Even if
Roe v. Wade were overturned, all that would do is return the question of abortion to the states (which is, honestly, where it belongs, since the Constitution is a grant of specific and limited powers to the federal government and is utterly silent on the question). What rights would be stripped from the LGBT community? Marriage? That wasn't a major issue in the Romney campaign to begin with, but I will concede that Republicans need to change their approach to it--most Americans either support it or are indifferent to it. The Republicans should take an active role in crafting the response to the issue such that it does not infringe on religious liberty.
Or perhaps the state should be out of the marriage business entirely--after all, marriage is one of two things: a religious sacrament (and therefore none of the state's damn business) or a private contract between two consenting adults (and therefore none of the state's damn business).
...