I don’t know. The name feels weird. I could see calling your community,
“moderates”
“moderategop”
“RINOs” (just like Trump’s supporters embraced calling themselves “deplorables”, non-Trump conservatives should probably ready themselves for turning enemies’ insults into their own battle standards.)
plus RINOs also gives a decent logo idea for the community (the rhinoceros)
As an Australian, what’s the alternative? It doesn’t feel like this kind of hyper-partisanship is going to help anyone. Not that I’m trying to excuse the GOP, Trump or the Far Right. But disparaging people who are trying to pull the party back towards centre is only going to encourage those groups to flourish.
No, I’m not trying to promote tolerance of the intolerant either. But that community doesn’t exactly sound like they want to turn out like r/The_Donald.
I’m not the person you replied to but I can comment to this effect. (Sorry for the wall of text - a lot of context to give about the American two-party system).
America has always found itself entrenched in a two party system. Periods that resemble now (very tight competition between the two parties) are very common in American history, but you do get occasional periods where a single party will be dominant for a long stretch. This says just as much about the unsuccessful party as it does the successful one: one is able to represent a large segment of American society, and the other is not. In this situation, the unsuccessful party will always rebrand to increase it’s relevancy (the alternative is that a party collapses and a new one forms, but that has not happened for >170 years). As an example, the Democratic Party (today includes Obama and Biden) once was the first choice for racist Southerners who were butthurt about the civil war. The Republican Party (today includes Trump) was led by the likes of Lincoln and was extremely progressive in racial issues for the time.
All this to say that the Republican Party doesn’t have to change in name or branding or even leadership to eliminate Trumpism and provide a platform for moderates. History tells us that, instead of a successful 3rd party rising up and replacing the Republicans, we will simply see a relatively short period (maybe 12-20 years) of Democrat victories and then the Republicans will be forced to adopt a more reasonable platform.
To an extent, this is already happening. In 2016, Republican Party leaders planned to adopt a platform that was more progressive on racial and women’s issues - they saw it as a lesson learned from their failures in the Obama era. Those same officials were blindsided by Trump’s popularity and had to pivot the opposite direction to meet the mood of the country. Despite Trump’s success though, his platform was never designed or planned as a long term strategy for winning elections and gaining support. Trump’s supporters are overwhelmingly old compared with his opponents, and thus are literally being replaced.
This should illustrate the extent of the republican party’s failure to adapt: they have won ONE presidential election popular vote since 1992. One. Out of eight that have occurred.
People like OP are an important part of this natural process of party realignment. OP rightly should be represented by a major party, but the modern Republican Party is failing to represent him. His is not a rare opinion in American political discourse; there are millions of people who would vote for more moderate conservatives if they had the option. One impact of this is that more far people are registering as “independent” voters than in previous years.
The end result of this, of course, is that the Republican Party is likely to change to represent people like OP over time. If people like OP begin to feel disillusioned with the Republican Party and it’s platform to the extent that they don’t vote, this process will only speed up. OP can do nothing better to quench the rise of far right trumpism than to be a political orphan for a while. That’s exactly what we’re encouraging by pointing out that his party hates him.
TL;DR
This dichotomy is not new in American politics and OP will actually do more to change the GOP from the outside than from the inside.
From my understanding, the US has a lot of issues with gerrymandering. There are places where the GOP would have to lose 30-40% of their voters for there to be a change in power. So, within that context, I don’t think what you’re proposing is a good idea. If you tell every single moderate, Trump-hating GOP supporter to leave the party, all that will be left are the fascist alt-right lunatics. People who won’t necessarily lose that entrenched power because of your two-party system. Wouldn’t it be better if more people like OP started participating in the party and taking it back from those fringes?
It seems like you’re also proposing that those people not vote at all. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to promote voter apathy. Shouldn’t it always be the goal to encourage as many people to vote as possible? Especially because your Electoral College also makes it easy for someone to win the presidency without winning popular support.
Dude, take a look at trump’s poll numbers for registered republicans. You are the one who is not welcome in the modern GOP, and you should stop kidding yourself about that fact.
Why is Phill Scott then Governor of Vermont then? Not everyone in the GOP is a Trump-Lover, just like how not everyone in the Democratic Party is a Communist.
Vermont is almost entirely a blue state! Phill Scott is successful as a Republican in Vermont because he is able to win over democrats with a combination of moderate politics and a strong level of local credibility.
He would be destroyed in Texas or Florida. You’ve got to realize that the people that vote in Phill Scott every election are the same people that have consistently kept Bernie Sanders in power… a self professed socialist
Add comment