Of course, it has begun: Speculation about the next Republican presidential nominee, followed closely by speculation about whether that candidate will be a minority. What better antidote, after all, to the TV shots of nearly all-white crowds at last summer’s GOP convention? What better buffer against the impending doom of the Census?
Here’s some good news for the GOP: The bench is deep, and it’s diverse, with rising stars that range from Marco Rubio to Susana Martinez, to the nation’s two Indian-American governors, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley.
Comments
move over weimar republic and make room for boston ma. suffolk county US of A. if one ever read tom wolfes tome BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES , than i hate to tellya that the BONFIRE and the VANITIES are right here, today , in good ol suffolk county. ma
Say what?
You read Tom Wolfe?
The GOP can trot out all the minorities and women they want. It's not going to work. There needs to be a core platform change that moves the party to the center. The Republicans just don't represent the majority of Americans and their beliefs. Women's rights have been a fundamental part of the American political fabric for decades. The fact that Republicans brought up disturbing challenges to that thinking sunk their ship. In another ten years gay rights will be another taken-for-granted issue. It will be fascinating to see how these younger, ethnically-diverse Republicans try to "spin" the socially-out-there platform of their party and achieve success.
Joanna, I read all your columns and enjoy them thoroughly. That said, after all we've been through (how long did this presidential campaign last, anyway?) please... No discussion and speculation about the NEXT one. At least until Pres. Obama is sworn in again? We all need a break - for more than five days.
So it's all about symbolism? I don't think so. It's about genuine ideas. Two things: Republicans have got to stop with the notion that they are somehow morally superior because they ride on the Jesus-bus, and they have got to stop being anti-intellectual and anti science. Real change would recognize that women and gays and transgendered people have the right to live their lives the way they want and make their own decisions about healthcare and marriage. Real change would be to hear proposals for huge increases in public funding for research and development, for public education, for public development, public transportation, public parks and support for the general welfare through the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
A Bobby Jindal with his hatred for gays and love of the Lord is not going to get it done. No amount of Ted Cruz or Allen West or Marco Rubio or Hermann Cain or any of these other "we support minorities" candidates are going to do well with the general population. It's about actual ideas.
Obviously the GOP continues to roll along in doesn't-get-it mode. But that's OK...stay with your current line of thinking GOPers and we Democrats will continue to govern responsibly and eventually we will have completely cleaned up the messes the Bush administration left behind. Thanks, GOP, stay as crazy as you are for as long as you like and do continue the death-cage match you're having with yourself.
The term window dressing comes to mind. Most people don't base on faces, they vote on interests, and the reactionary single issue coalition cobbled together bythe likes of Roger Ailes and Karl Rove, united in large part by fear of 'the other', is ageing out and evolving away. The GOP doesn't need change at the top, it needs a behind the scenes leader who will effect change from the bottom up. It won't happen over night, or likely by 2016, but if the party is to survive it must return to its roots: social liberalism combined with true fiscal conservatism. No more hate mongering, no more bowing to plutocrats.
This comment has been removed.
Why stop the speculation with the GOP? To put it more broadly, the next election may have two candidates who are not white males - Hillary vs ??. I'm sure the GOP as well as others have noticed how certain demographics tend to vote on blocks based on issues important to that demographic, and will work to position the appropriate candidates that can broaden their appeal to these demographic groups. There is a sense with this recent election you cannot win without capturing a sizable percentage of these demographic groups. What will be even more interesting, if this does plays out, is how these candidates will realize they truly cannot win without wooing a very large and undefined demographic - white males. It is a group whose middle core does not really seem enamored to either political party. For the first time, this group may not have a candidate for the highest office. It will be interesting to see in a few years during the priamry season how each party's candidates tries to gain favor with this group, and learns that carrots such as expansive government, "immigration reform" and various social issues have little or no appeal is that fairly fiscally conservative and self-reliant.
I'm a middle aged white male, fairly representative of many I know, and guess what? The fact that some is male doesn't impress me that much. This ain't 1950. I vote for platforms and candidates, not for stereotypes. Stop focussing on simplistic demographic calculus. Get the positions right, build coalitions (rather than assembling fractious and fickle factions) and the votes will follow. Speak truth, make sense, be inclusive.
This election, ndcsjp, was all about white males on the Republican side. You can't win if that's the only demographic you want. There are white males (about 40% of them, I think) who care about people other than white males. A Republican party which rejects almost all the issues important to other groups is destined for defeat in the long term.
The one piece of illogic in your post and in this column is that the Democratic Party is not run by a select few who have decided to appeal to this or that group. Those groups are *part* of the party which has always been a "big tent." Democratic positions on issues important to women, blacks, hispanics, Jews, asians, etc., are not artificial creations. All those groups are mostly Democrats and express their preferences from *within* the party.
This is the Republican difficulty. How do you appeal to those who have no voice in your party?
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
The Party could stick an Hispanic, a black and woman on the ticket and still lose. People will not vote for the "religious right" or the "social conservatives." Even those of us who are "fiscal conservatives" will not support the nut wing of the Republican Party. Bobby Jindal, please. Rubio, please. Huntsman we can talk about that when you fix your platform. Christie? I'll have that conversation. But for as long as the crazies control the party and the House I can't vote for those guys either. Let's get back to being "fiscal conservatives" and "social neutrals".
This comment has been removed.
Wait! I thought Bobby Jindal was a Muppet! You mean he's a real person? Egad!