The Political No Win Scenario

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

For those that enjoy the "strategy" side of politics and how issues are taken up and abandoned by different parties, I submit this story here about the schism within the Republican Party due to same sex marriage.

I would submit the following (regardless of how you feel about the issue.)

1. The Evangelical base is an indispensable bloc of the Republican party in terms of voter turnout.
2. The base is no longer sufficient to defeat the Democratic plurality due to shifting demographics and opinions.
3. If the Republican party does NOT drop its opposition to same sex marriage, it's ability to win national elections will continue to be marginalized. Actually, there's a fun projection from Nate Silver here.

So my question is politically practical. What is it in the Republican Party's best interest to do today? Remove any chance of winning national elections and possibly become replaced by another party that will tow the evangelical line by supporting Same Sex Marriage today? Support that status quo and stay competitive (although rely on voter suppression and turnout) in the present at the risk of long term obsolescence? Is there a way to transition to a Pro Same Sex marriage platform AND stay competitive?

[Rapscallion]

My best guess is that the Republicans are going to stay the course for now as they rely too much on the right-wing of christianity. Despite having some of the most outstandingly bad own-goals during the latest attempt at the presidency, they still polled in the election far higher than I would have expected.

They'd need to replace too many voters, and despite the right wing christians losing a natural home, I suspect many would rather stay at home than vote for something they fundamentally disagree with.

I do think they're going to have to look for a different approach, but then I wonder what they actually stand for if they're going to shift their views to attract voters?

Rapscallion

[crashhelmet]

I'm with Raps in saying that they're going to do everything in their power to "right the ship" (Pun intended), but I still think the Tea party is going to split off at some point. Either they're going to be too disgruntled with the Republicans moving away from the evangelicals and/or birthers or the Republicans are going to cut them off like a cancerous appendage.

Some, like Rand Paul, would side up with the Libertarians, others will be the actual "Tea" Party

[HYHYBT]

The answer is prayer: that the Supreme Court will rule broadly this summer and thereby take the matter out of politicians' hands. Pragmatically, the thing that would do them the most good at this point would be a total loss they have no control over.

It's almost enough to make me hope the conservatives on the court *do* put their politics over principle, because they surely see this too.

[HYHYBT]

crashhelmet: which, in your view, *is* the "real" Tea Party, then?

[Hyena Dandy]

I believe what Crash was implying was that some people would join the Libertarian party, and others would form a party of their own, that one being the 'real' tea party - It's really the tea party because it's an actual political party.

[crashhelmet]

I believe what Crash was implying was that some people would join the Libertarian party, and others would form a party of their own, that one being the 'real' tea party - It's really the tea party because it's an actual political party.

Exactly. It would be a whole new political party, much like the Reform Party back in the 1996 elections.

[Panacea]

I'm with Raps in saying that they're going to do everything in their power to "right the ship" (Pun intended), but I still think the Tea party is going to split off at some point. Either they're going to be too disgruntled with the Republicans moving away from the evangelicals and/or birthers or the Republicans are going to cut them off like a cancerous appendage.

Some, like Rand Paul, would side up with the Libertarians, others will be the actual "Tea" Party

The Tea Party is mostly made up of fiscal ultra conservatives; they are more interested in the country's financial problems than the social ones. To wit, you don't see them talking much about gun control, same sex marriage or anything else but the deficit and debt reduction. They are vocally anti Obama, because they think he is a socialist/communist.

I do think the Tea Party may split off, and then die a quick death. Third parties don't do well in the US, and the fiscal hawks will quickly rejoin the GOP to have a chance at influencing public policy.

Some might join the Libertarians, but their isolationist trends may them unappealing as well.

The social conservatives dominate the GOP and are likely to continue to for some time. Which is a shame, because it is on the FISCAL issues that the GOP could actually attract a larger base than old white men if they would just stop hamstringing themselves with immigration (Hispanics tend to be social and fiscal conservatives), and gay marriage.

I'm not hearing any real change in attitudes from the GOP on many of these issues. They are making an effort at bipartisanship, though, because they have figured out that the country is ready to lynch them over the obstructionism. Now they're working to get legislation passed, while trying to spin what does pass in the best possible light. I think we're on the verge of some major, landmark legislation on immigration and gun control this year that will define the Obama presidency. Like Clinton, it will take the 2nd term in order for things to really get done.

However, what the liberals want will be either watered down, or there will be some give and take with what the conservatives want, which is just fine by me. It should be that way. The best deal is the one where everyone walks away unhappy.

I do wish Congress would get serious about tax reform, but I'm not optimistic about that this year.

[mikoyan29]

I do wish Congress would get serious about tax reform, but I'm not optimistic about that this year.

The problem with Tax Reform is that everyone knows what needs to be done but noone is really willing to do it. What I would like to see is a somewhat flat tax but with some degree of progressiveness in it. Basically, the poverty line and below would pay no taxes and then we'd have different brackets but they wouldn't too far apart (maybe 20,25 and 30%). I would end treating capital gains different from other income (which might mean lowering the rates set above). But after that, I don't know.

[Panacea]

The problem with Tax Reform is that everyone knows what needs to be done but noone is really willing to do it. What I would like to see is a somewhat flat tax but with some degree of progressiveness in it. Basically, the poverty line and below would pay no taxes and then we'd have different brackets but they wouldn't too far apart (maybe 20,25 and 30%). I would end treating capital gains different from other income (which might mean lowering the rates set above). But after that, I don't know.

It's impossible to make the flat tax progressive; it is contrary to the very nature of the tax becasue it is a sales tax and all sales taxes are regressive. In order to make the flat tax progressive, it would have to increase as a proportion of the cost paid based on income, which is impossible to figure in to the price when it is set.

You'd have people lining up to show their pay stubs in order to verify their income to get this tax rate or that. Can you imagine the Sucky Customers it would spawn?

Heck, we have SCs who don't want to pay sales taxes as it is.

[Chromatix]

The situation is, of course, precipitated by the US electoral system which is heavily, extremely biased to inherently produce a two-party system. So is the UK system, but significantly less so. If we compare it to the Finnish system, we can see what makes it so:

1) The head of state is elected as part of a political party. In the US, the distinction between electing the President and electing Senators and Congressmen is practically lost on most voters.

In the UK, the party holding a strict majority of seats in the House of Commons gets to put it's leader forward as the Prime Minister; if you are not in a large enough party to fill more than half the House, you cannot be Prime Minister (except as part of a coalition, which is extremely rare in the UK but is currently in effect). Coalition is when two political parties agree to work together as a single Government; the remaining candidates then form the Opposition as usual.

In Finland, the head of state (the President) is elected individually, even in a separate year and on a different length term, from the representatives (including the Prime Minister). It is not at all rare to have a President from a different political party than the ones currently in power in Parliament.

2) The "winner takes all" mentality means that only the loudest voice is heard. If there is another voice that is *nearly* as loud, or even two quieter voices that sing in unison and add up to a greater sum, they are still drowned out. The latter effect makes it extremely difficult and risky to split a party in two when a genuine distinction arises. This happens in both the US and the UK - and a side-effect is the phrase "strategic voting", where voters deliberately change their candidate to one more likely to win than the one they really want, so as to exclude one that doesn't match their views at all.

In Finland, a sophisticated Proportional Representation scheme is in effect. Each electoral district returns multiple seats, which are allocated in rough proportion to the votes received by each party, and to the most popular candidates within those parties. This ensures that two or three or even four voices of nearly equal strength can all get heard from each area. Looking at the close results in many individual US states, PR would have a profound effect on the political climate there.

Finland's PR scheme also regularly leads to multiple political parties holding substantially equal shares of seats in Parliament. No single party holds an overall majority (over 50%), rather a typical share is just 20-25%. There is therefore always a period after each election in which a coalition is negotiated, involving three or more parties, to form an overall-majority government that can appoint a Prime Minister.

There are no particularly strong traditional alliances or enmities between specific parties here, so whichever parties' policies happen to line up best in the light of current affairs tends to influence who will work together. In a US context, that might mean that fiscal conservatives and social conservatives could still work together, or maybe the fiscal conservatives might find common ground with the more socially liberal party. Either way, it greatly reduces the political risks of splitting the party, and thus leads to better representation of what The People actually want.

[Chromatix]

On the subject of taxation, I think the biggest problem in many First World nations today is the way that rich people can avoid paying taxes, regardless of what rate is set for them. Sales tax (or VAT as appropriate) is annoying and regressive, but rich people do spend more than the poor.

The tax burden falls disproportionately on middle-class and poor people mainly because they don't have the resources to shuffle money around cleverly like rich people do. So as the super-rich gather more and more money to themselves, very little of that is passed up to the government to potentially benefit the rest of us. The tax rates on the ordinary citizen are then raised to compensate.

And this is mirrored among large corporations versus small corporations. Look at the ownership chart for almost any multinational, and you'll see that the highest-level holding companies in it are headquartered in well-known tax havens; all they have to do is send surpluses up the org chart, record the transaction as a loss to the leaf nodes, and pay tax on almost no "profits" in the countries where sales actually occurred.

I recently saw mention that a company with a UK website address, selling tickets for trains running entirely within the UK, dealing with mostly UK-resident customers, using prices in Pounds Sterling, was routinely using a payment processor based in Luxembourg. Yes, Luxembourg is considered a tax haven within the EU - it has high VAT but low corporate taxes. It is accepted that many companies dealing with the whole of the EU base themselves there, but is it right that a company dealing almost exclusively with one country, which doesn't even use the same currency, does so?

The effect is the same as for income taxes - the corporate tax burden falls disproportionately on small, local businesses. They are then less able to set competitive prices and wages, leading to loss of customers to the cheaper large competitors, and loss of the best talent to larger, better-paying competitors.

[Gravekeeper]

So my question is politically practical. What is it in the Republican Party's best interest to do today?

I suppose "stop being hypocritical bigoted greedy assholes" would be the short answer.

Long answer: Nothing. We're watching their last dying throes as they rage like a cornered animal. I think on some level they're starting to realize the ship is aimed at the iceberg, but their inability to admit they might be wrong about anything prevents them from changing course.

The nature of the beast is that it's created its own information bubble around itself. They're in a corner chanting "One of us! One of us!" and if anyone in the group dare goes "Hey guys, maybe we should think about this" they get ostracized.

Yet conversely, when someone in the group says something absolutely horrible ( a weekly occurrence for them lately ), they just try to ignore it or worse yet they blame the people who are angry about it and offer up a non-apology. Its become almost comical the way the news cycle goes with them now:

"Hey! Sorry you were offended when I called you a nigger/wetback/surpressed your reproductive rights/implied you were no better than a pedophile/implied you'd have sex with farm animals if we granted you equal rights/Tried to starve your family over your child's grades, etc. We cool right?"

"Well, no, we're not. You didn't even apologize."

"Oh my god, why are you libs so angry? This is all the left wing media. Stop playing the race card and trying to take away my freedom to oppress women and minorities!"

"But you didn't even apologize!"

"YOU KILL BABIES"

The Republican party will either slowly rot and die off as its remaining voters die of old age over the next few decades. Slowly losing more and more of the vote. Or, it will reach a breaking point whereby some Republicans will realize they need to change and be ostracized by the others who are on a mission to "Restore America" to some fabled right wing utopia from the 50's that never existed. Which will likewise see them losing power as the voting base gets split up amongst the factions.

[Panacea]

We have a situation similar to Luxembourg with Delaware. Many US corporations are there because of the extremely business friendly courts and tax system.

During the first election cycles under the US Constitution, the President and Vice President were elected seperately. Washington had no party affiliation, though he tended to hold to the views of the Federalists. His VP, John Adams, was a leading Federalist. Adams was unhappy because he had little role in running the government.

When Adams became President, his political rival, Jefferson became VP. Jefferson was a better politician and able to exert enough influence to give Adams a four year migraine.

When Jefferson became President, the tables were turned with his VP, Aaron Burr who got into a duel with Alexander Hamilton and got himself killed.

That led to the Constitution being revised to put the President and the VP on the same ticket. Dueling parties in the exec role just didn't work.

The reason is because in the US we combine head of state and head of government into one job. Parliamentary systems split the job (example, Queen Elizabeth is the head of state, while PM is head of government), so that's why you can have members of both political parties in those roles as in Finland.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, to be bluntly honest the US would function much better as a parliamentary system. It has a large population yet 50 separate entities. If everyone was afforded equal representation in a parliament according to population rather than a weighted electoral vote it might work better.

In the current system you have to be the ticket of a huge political entity so there's only room for two parties. Whether or not you even agree with them. You have to on to the one you agree with more than the other.

In Soviet Canuckistan you vote for your local MP, then whomever gains the most seats gets to be Prime Minister. But anyone who wins as a local MP sits in Parliament regardless of affiliation or even no affiliation. You can run without a party.

More importantly though our elections are painless and quick, 2 months tops usually and we can unseat a party in power if they're fucking up. They don't just get free reign for 4 years.