Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What will improve Republicans chances next time?

  1. Nov 7, 2012 #1
    Hopefully not so hot topic, what changes would you like in Republicans other than them turning into non-conservatives?

    Few things I would like, ordered in terms of importance:
    1) Have a more clear job creation and economic growth plan
    2) Kick out people who think there are different kinds or rapes or who cannot name news papers
    [STRIKE]3) Be more aware of the global affairs and bit more diplomatic in dealing with outsiders[/STRIKE]
    4) More welcoming to Hispanics and other growing minorities

    Respecting state-church separation was also on my list but I don't think it's important enough.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 7, 2012 #2
    I think they should move further to the right. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  4. Nov 7, 2012 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But then they wouldn't be Republicans...
  5. Nov 7, 2012 #4
    They will surely be Republicans with 1 and 2 points. I forgot to remove #3 points also so I will do that now. I don't consider that to be important. However, I think #4 is important. They must adapt to changing demographics. I recall coming across articles about minorities growing faster than white population. And, I believe Bush and Obama didn't have any differences between how to handle illegal immigration. So either Republican or Democrat President you wouldn't have huge differences in how to handle the illegal immigration IMO. Republicans just shouldn't be too passionate about this anti-illegal-immigration topic.
  6. Nov 7, 2012 #5
    For me personally to come back:
    1. Own the policies republicans championed in the 90s. I like free market solutions to healthcare. The shift away from these policies ' 'Our healthcare is the best in the world!', etc) is largely why I stopped voting republican.
    2. Stop signing Norquist's pledge- lawmakers NEED to be able to respond to changing situations, and being locked into "no tax hikes ever" prevents compromise.
    3. Relax on social issues in favor of fiscal issues. I feel like Republicans and Democrats are really a sort of centrist hobson's choice on a lot of women's issues, HOWEVER, the Republican rhetoric is abhorrent.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2012
  7. Nov 7, 2012 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If anything, I expect them to go further to the right.
  8. Nov 7, 2012 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Gay rights and women's rights. Gay rights just passed 50% approval. It's been steadily increasing for 40 years because there's absolutely no justification for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.

    Dissociate with religion, too. Romney actually did a good job of that. I'm quite impressed (with America) that a Mormon did so well.
  9. Nov 7, 2012 #8
    Why not? :confused: If they'd just stick to the issues of limited-government, fiscal conservatism, free-market solutions, low taxes, and national security, I think they'd do a lot better among the groups they struggle with. The whole anti-gay, anti-choice, impose religion on people, agenda seems to be more due to the power of the Evangelical wing the party is beholden to.
  10. Nov 7, 2012 #9
    Yes, I felt Romney was really good. But, he just failed to clarify his fiscal policies. He should have only and only focused on that.

    Exactly! This point summarizes everything I said the OP.

    Now you are really asking them to go non-conservatives :tongue2:
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  11. Nov 7, 2012 #10
    What free-market solutions to healthcare are you thinking of though?

    Tax hikes are pointless though if spending is not at least controlled in the process.

    I agree.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2012
  12. Nov 7, 2012 #11
    No. I'm not asking them to advocate higher taxes, I'm asking them to be willing to be somewhat flexible. George H.W. Bush used a tax increase as leverage to squeeze out spending concessions- but he got attacked by the party for it. That can't keep happening.

    Stand for a smaller welfare state and lower taxes, but recognize that some problems might require tax increases (Reagan raised taxes when necessary, as did H.W. Bush).

    I stand by the Republican party that once was in trusting the market to find a way.

    Slowly push healthcare out of the employer market and towards individual exchanges, etc. Basically, the core ideas of the Gingrich/Romney/Obama plan that has passed. One of the largest reasons I used to vote republican and now vote democrat is that the solutions I thought were good ideas used to be advocated by Republicans and now are advocated by Democrats. Which is weird- because I'm not that old.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2012
  13. Nov 7, 2012 #12


    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    I grew up in a very republican house hold and I find that i'm inclined to like many of there ideas, but the problem I have is not so much with ideas but with attitude. So if I had to say what the Republicans need to do is adopt a better attitude. I would like to see a stop to "Welfare is for lazy minorities who all drugs", "Gays are bad", and "the world hates us because we're just to damn awesome!' mentality.

    I understand not all republicans are like this, but from my day to day interaction with people who call themselves conservatives, this seems be prominent. It seems like the fiscally conservative but socially open people who at one time may have been republican decided it's better to leave the party than associate with the fringe.
  14. Nov 8, 2012 #13
    Reagan was promised spending cuts for one of his tax increases, and the Congress reversed itself quickly on that. He signed a FICA tax increase to shore up Social Security. George H. W. Bush signed a tax increase with spending cuts promised, but they never materialized.

    Democrats need to also recognize that some problems require controls on spending as well.

    Now you are the one who sounds like they have a little too much faith in the free-market! Just because you tax something doesn't mean the market will solve it immediately. That's like saying if they taxed highly internal combustion-engined cars, that the market would find a replacement. But what? Electric cars haven't been viable for one-hundred years now. We don't have a viable replacement for the incandescent light bulb. We don't have a viable replacement for petroleum even. Such policies need to wait for the technology to become viable. Just having faith that the technology will become viable soon if there's an incentive doesn't mean it will. We've been subsidizing solar panel technology for years now and it still isn't viable.
  15. Nov 8, 2012 #14


    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    (interjection, but how are CFL and LED lamps not viable?)
  16. Nov 8, 2012 #15


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I think respecting the state-church boundary is absolutely important. If I were to stay in the US long enough to think it worth it to acquire citizenship, I would be hard pressed to ever vote Republican if many of their policy decisions were still being made on the basis of the religious convictions of a portion of their membership. Perhaps I agree with too many of the Democrat positions on social, education and health care issues to really ever find myself firmly in Moderate territory, but I see pandering to the portions of the religious right trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the nation as one of the main barriers to me ever voting for the Conservatives in Canada or the Republicans in the US if I had American citizenship.

    Maybe it's just too much of a stretch and I'm just asking Republicans not to be Republicans, though. :)
  17. Nov 8, 2012 #16
    Source? According to the poli-sci book I have in front of me, the real rate of growth in federal spending fell from ~4% to ~2.5% under Reagan. Thats a materialized massive spending cut.

    Yes, they did. H.W. Bush pushed through a mild tax increase BUT also pushed through the pay-as-you-go rules as part of the compromise after the government shutdown. The pay-as-you-go rules helped keep spending in check for years, until W. Bush and the Republicans suspended them.

    Yes, it would. Look at Europe- higher taxes on gasoline and autos than the US- what happens: more trains, rent-a-bicycle stations in cities, those tiny smart cars, more of those vespa scooters, etc. Also,if internal combustion cars were more expensive (because of taxes), electrical cars would obviously be more appealing at the margin.

    If you cap-and-trade, then you allow the market to distribute who gets to emit the most. Places that can reduce their carbon output in simple ways (turning the lights off in the office at night, high efficiency appliances, more efficient deliveries to minimize miles driven etc) have an incentive to do so. Cap and trade doesn't force everyone to reduce their emissions- it allows the market to find those industries that can reduce.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
  18. Nov 8, 2012 #17
    No major ideological change is going to happen. Unfortunately.

    Marco Rubio will be the next vice-presidential candidate. That's it.
  19. Nov 8, 2012 #18

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Historically, one party gains power when the other either overreaches, or there is a strong negative event. For example, suppose we finally maxed out our national credit card and interest rates looked like 1981's in a year. Then the interest on the debt would move from 6% of the budget to 12% in the first year and 25% by election day. That would cause either massive service cuts, tax increases, or more likely both. That would cause a sea change.
  20. Nov 8, 2012 #19
    In 1982, Reagan signed a tax increase with a promise from Tip O'Neil that they'd reduce spending by $3 for every $1 of increased revenue. One week later Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill that reneged on this promise and increased spending. Reagan vetoed it and the Congress over-rode his veto.

    Yes, but the spending cuts themselves never materialized (unless I am looking at the data wrong, but if you go to usgovernmentspending.com and look at the chart of U.S. government spending from 1990 on, spending continued going up and the deficit increased from 1990 to 1992). Although from my understanding, making any serious cuts would have been very difficult to do anyway as most of the easy cuts had already been made in the Reagan years. The Republicans should not have ended pay-as-you-go.

    Trains, bicycles, smart cars, and vespa scooters are not what I'd call viable replacements for the internal combustion engine, they are what happens when you do not yet have a viable replacement, and thus people must then sacrifice.

    Also, you're missing the point about electrical cars: it's not just that they are too costly, it's that they're not viable period. They have too small a range and take hours to charge. The current hybrid electirc cars that have a small engine in them have a problem with catching fire when they get submerged in water. If electric cars get where hte charge will take you the same distance and/or last as long as a conventional engine will, and you can also charge it up in five minutes or less, then they will start to be viable.

    Things like turning off the lights at night and high-efficiency appliances are small changes. Also high-efficiency appliances tend to cost more, so you are increasing the cost of energy for people and then forcing them to buy more costly appliances. Plus our energy needs are continually increasing as the economy grows.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2012
  21. Nov 8, 2012 #20
    Because they don't naturally produce light of equal quality with incandescents and have their own share of problems that incandescents do not have. With CFLs, you have the problem of mercury in them, and also that they take awhile to light up and produce a harsh quality of light. They have ones with a soft quality of light that are very close to incandescents and which light up instantly, but those cost a lot more (and regular CFLs cost a lot more than incandescents).

    LED lamps produce directional, very white light. An incandescent scatters the light naturally and produces light of the appropriate color naturally. To get an LED to do so requires a lot of complicated engineering and manufacturing. Since LED light is directional, they have to array individual LED lights within the LED "bulb" (as LEDs are technically electronics) in a circular fashion. But then there's the problem of getting the light to scatter up and down, which requires further engineering. Then there's the problem of the color. For this, they coat the interior of the light "bulb" covering with a material that, when it interacts with the LED light, produces a softer quality of light.

    Point is, none of that is an improvement over a regular incandescent. It would be like saying a diesel-electric hybrid car that gets 100+ mpg (which I think they can make) would be an improvement in vehicle technology. If it costs the same as Toyota Camry or Honda Accord, and gets that, then sure, but right now, it's so costly, it wouldn't be a viable alternative. Or televisions. A television that was more (supposedly) energy-efficient, but got worse picture-quality than any modern TV and cost 4X as much I wouldn't call an improvement. With the light bulbs, not only is it questionable if they are even as energy-efficient as claimed, but their light-quality doesn't match that of a very cheap, simple incandescent.

    A real improvement is something like modern computers over older computers: cheaper, much more powerful, and more and more energy-efficient.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook