How to save the Republican Party.

There are several quotes in the article that struck me:

To be clear: Reasonable tax rates and sound monetary policy remain important economic commitments. But America now confronts a series of challenges that have to do with globalization, stagnant wages, the loss of blue-collar jobs, exploding health-care and college costs, and the collapse of the culture of marriage.

Yes, reasonable tax rates and sound monetary policy should be the #1 focus, globalization, stagnant wages, loss of blue-collar jobs, and exploding healthcare and college costs fall into that focus and it would be nice to see some proactive, not reactive movement made on those fronts. Blue-collar jobs aren't coming back, just like blacksmiths will never be in need like they were before the invention of the automobile. Point fingers and blame it on regional movements due to wage and benefit costs in one versus the other, or find a way to re-invigorate that workforce by educating and moving them into jobs that are needed now and in the future.

In addition, on a number of these issues the Republican Party has developed a reputation—mostly but not completely unfair—as judgmental and retrograde.

Agreed. They come across as rigidly traditional, and close-minded; it's not a good combo for getting people to identify with you, especially with the changing demographics and attitudes of this country.

In 1972, an anonymous Democratic senator, later revealed to be Thomas Eagleton, famously referred to George McGovern as the candidate of “amnesty, abortion, and acid.” No wonder, then, that McGovern went on to lose 49 of the 50 states to Richard Nixon. “Nothing is more certain in politics,” wrote William Safire in the wake of this Democratic fiasco, “than the crushing defeat of a faction that holds ideological purity to be of greater value than compromise.” To a greater or lesser degree, that was the case for the Democrats for almost the next 20 years.

Compromise, effort, civility, and professionalism are missing from both parties; it's what made me decide to go Unaffiliated 2 years ago.

This is not just bad news for the Republican Party; it is bad news for the country. As much as at any time in recent history, America needs a strong, vibrant party on the right to speak for the civilizing ideal of limited government.

I cannot emphasize this enough - our country's strength comes from balancing the two opposing sides, and celebrating the good that each bring to the table. We humans come in many different flavors, ideals, beliefs and its not necessarily agreeing with, but at least accepting, those differences as strengths and having a willingness to incorporate pieces and parts of each into the whole of our identity and policies that we became, and can continue to be, the greatest nation on this planet. As soon as one side becomes lopsidedly stronger than the other, and refuses to compromise, we end up with policies that benefit only segments of the population, not our country as a whole.

In developing a response to these perceptions, Republicans should not downplay their traditional strengths. Given the feeble path of economic growth, reasonable tax rates and a rational tax code are prerequisites for future job creation at sufficient levels. ...And given the vast potential economic advantage of newly discovered energy sources—both natural gas and shale oil—Republicans should stand for their responsible exploitation.

This is where I start to have one major problem with this author (I also disliked the wishy-washy statements on what the Republican Party should do about the change in "traditional marriage" ugh). The fiscal conservatism I have no problem with, the mistaken assumption that natural gas and shale oil can be "responsibly exploited" is a statement that epitomizes the number 1 reason that I hold against the Republican Party, and Libertarian and Tea Parties, at this moment. The author briefly touches upon Republican views on science policy elsewhere in the article, but those paragraphs too were sadly lacking. If the Republican Party truly wants to reverse its perception of "judgemental and retrograde", then it needs to embrace the accepted science and start aggressively implementing policies to mitigate the coming train wreck. Any further development of fossil fuel resources is a path that will lead us to further bankruptcy and insolvency as a nation. As the UK Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change said a few days ago
[quoteemEdward Davey:1z55crx0]Too often, we are told that those who go low-carbon first will sacrifice their competitiveness.

But as the Prime Minister set out last week, reaffirming our shared commitment to being the greenest government ever:

“We are in a global race and the countries that succeed in that race, the economies that will prosper, are those that are the greenest and the most energy efficient.”

The real danger we face is being outpaced by other countries who are investing in clean, low-carbon economies.[/quoteem:1z55crx0]This is a focus that should be right up the Republicans' alley - free market capitalism keeping us at the forefront of the world economy if we move that direction now. There's no downside, we get off of oil and supporting countries that are unstable and hostile towards us, we become more sustainable and self-sufficient, and save money - tell what in that list a conservative objects to?

Republicans could begin by becoming visible and persistent critics of corporate welfare: the vast network of subsidies and tax breaks extended by Democratic and Republican administrations alike to wealthy and well-connected corporations. Such benefits undermine free markets and undercut the public’s confidence in American capitalism. They also increase federal spending.

Please God yes, what a refreshing change, agree wholeheartedly! The Democrats have hugely disappointed me that they have sided with corporate interests over those of The People, as the party has touted itself since at least the Civil Rights Movement.

America’s five largest banks hold assets equal to 60 percent of our economy, a highly dangerous concentration and source of undue political power. These mega-banks—both “too big to fail” and “too complex to manage”—are the unnatural result of government subsidies, not market forces. By supporting the breakup of the big banks, Republicans would encourage competition and create a decentralized system more likely to survive future economic earthquakes. Together with this, the GOP could commit itself to ensuring a greater degree of social mobility across the board.

Both parties have been guilty of fostering this environment, and it's the main goal of the Occupy Protests (wait, this author is saying the Republican Party should follow what the Occupy Protesters have been demanding for months - Sweet! :thumbsup: ) - Wall St and corporations should not have the power that they have, and get the loopholes, tax breaks, and subsidies that they've been getting - they are destroying the middle class, benefiting the wealthy few, and killing social mobility as the author states - that's not capitalism, that's cronyism. Exactly what caused those who first came to this country to flee their homelands - we are turning into that which we abhorred. And no, it's not just corporations that want entitlements, it's individuals too - we as a society have slowly forgotten hardship and frugality and pure survival (I'm thinking of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl, and how much we waste in comparison to the people of those times) and while I'm not for watching people suffer who have had a bad turn of luck, I am appalled at what many consider "hardship" these days. Unfortunately, the only way to change that mindset is for it to go bad for everyone, which I do believe is coming - we've had a good cycle for far too long...

Good food for thought article chickaree, thanks!