As has been promised for two decades, demographics have become destiny. There aren't enough white men interested in appeasing an angry father left to float a Republican President. Obama was a weak President, but there was zero real enthusiasm for Romney, outside of Mormons and some billionaires. (Obama has plenty of billionaires on his side, of course.) So the "southern strategy" is dead, or mostly dead.
Also, for the first time, marriage equality has won on the state level via voting—and this despite the fact that in 2008 every major Democratic candidate was against it. Obama flipped to refill his treasure chest just a few months ago. This is important to keep in mind. An uncomplicated change, already seemingly implicit in Obama's politics, and the money and enthusiasm started to flow.
So, what can the Republicans do now if they want back into the White House one day? What political change can they make that are a) possible and b) useful for their diabolical project? Some numbers from battleground states suggest a realignment.
Ohio:
![Picture 2]( "Picture 2")
Florida:
![Picture 3]( "Picture 3")
Virginia:
![Picture 4]( "Picture 4")
On some level, the Libertarian Party split, small as it was, may have been decisive. We can add to the LP vote the Paulites who could have been heavily motivated to get out the vote for the Republicans, but either voted for Romney with a held nose, or just stayed home. So, why didn't the libertarian flank of the Republicans go out for Romney. Blah blah statist, but who cares, it's all blah blah statists and the Republicans do want something to rule.
So the Republicans can't go full libertarian. They're a party of capital at least and despite the dreams of Austrians, Randians, and other fools, the state and capital are co-dependent mutually reinforcing formations. So there isn't going to be "sound money" or the gold standard or the end to corporate welfare or any of that stuff.
And there will be war. That too is a driver of capitalism, as both a destroyer of capital in times of overproduction, and as an innovator of technologies, etc. It also keeps unemployment numbers down. One wouldn't want a few million more young men with a taste for action going all sea people on the centers of finance and industry, after all. So the Republicans cannot become a peace party. Also, those angry white men are still a powerful force—they need Daddy to parcel out machismo in good doses.
Race is a possibility. One can imagine an individualist discourse of anti-racism that doesn't simply devolve into locating racism in the complaints of blacks and Latinos about racism, but that's a hard row to hoe. And parties have realigned around race quick fashion, more than once, in US history. But those realignments have happened when the contradictions of the system have reached the breaking point, and when the locus of the contradictions were within the ideological structure of the US. Thus, the native population of the continent can be wiped out without much internal strife over it, and today any number of people of color can be slaughtered by Democrats and Republicans...so long as they're not Americans. Also, Obama is much better positioned to articulate an individualist anti-racist discourse for obvious reasons.
So, what's left? Well, the religious right has to go. Nobody wants to have a fight about creationism or the great God of Rape that some Republican Congressional candidates seem to worship, etc. If the Republicans want to be capitalists, they must also be cosmopolitans. (This also means that the Republicans have to stop red-baiting cosmopolitan capitalists, aka Democrats, period.) But even thus will simply further blur the line between Republicans and Democrats, without necessarily bringing the libertarian fringe back into the GOP.
So what can the GOP actually do? What position can it articulate that won't damage what's left of its base and preserve its role as the party of financial and agricultural capitalism as they actually exist—as opposed to Candyland Capitalism of Really Free Markets for Everything that never has and never will exist?
It's easy when you take a deep breath and think about it.
Legalize it.
Also, for the first time, marriage equality has won on the state level via voting—and this despite the fact that in 2008 every major Democratic candidate was against it. Obama flipped to refill his treasure chest just a few months ago. This is important to keep in mind. An uncomplicated change, already seemingly implicit in Obama's politics, and the money and enthusiasm started to flow.
So, what can the Republicans do now if they want back into the White House one day? What political change can they make that are a) possible and b) useful for their diabolical project? Some numbers from battleground states suggest a realignment.
Ohio:
Florida:
Virginia:
On some level, the Libertarian Party split, small as it was, may have been decisive. We can add to the LP vote the Paulites who could have been heavily motivated to get out the vote for the Republicans, but either voted for Romney with a held nose, or just stayed home. So, why didn't the libertarian flank of the Republicans go out for Romney. Blah blah statist, but who cares, it's all blah blah statists and the Republicans do want something to rule.
So the Republicans can't go full libertarian. They're a party of capital at least and despite the dreams of Austrians, Randians, and other fools, the state and capital are co-dependent mutually reinforcing formations. So there isn't going to be "sound money" or the gold standard or the end to corporate welfare or any of that stuff.
And there will be war. That too is a driver of capitalism, as both a destroyer of capital in times of overproduction, and as an innovator of technologies, etc. It also keeps unemployment numbers down. One wouldn't want a few million more young men with a taste for action going all sea people on the centers of finance and industry, after all. So the Republicans cannot become a peace party. Also, those angry white men are still a powerful force—they need Daddy to parcel out machismo in good doses.
Race is a possibility. One can imagine an individualist discourse of anti-racism that doesn't simply devolve into locating racism in the complaints of blacks and Latinos about racism, but that's a hard row to hoe. And parties have realigned around race quick fashion, more than once, in US history. But those realignments have happened when the contradictions of the system have reached the breaking point, and when the locus of the contradictions were within the ideological structure of the US. Thus, the native population of the continent can be wiped out without much internal strife over it, and today any number of people of color can be slaughtered by Democrats and Republicans...so long as they're not Americans. Also, Obama is much better positioned to articulate an individualist anti-racist discourse for obvious reasons.
So, what's left? Well, the religious right has to go. Nobody wants to have a fight about creationism or the great God of Rape that some Republican Congressional candidates seem to worship, etc. If the Republicans want to be capitalists, they must also be cosmopolitans. (This also means that the Republicans have to stop red-baiting cosmopolitan capitalists, aka Democrats, period.) But even thus will simply further blur the line between Republicans and Democrats, without necessarily bringing the libertarian fringe back into the GOP.
So what can the GOP actually do? What position can it articulate that won't damage what's left of its base and preserve its role as the party of financial and agricultural capitalism as they actually exist—as opposed to Candyland Capitalism of Really Free Markets for Everything that never has and never will exist?
It's easy when you take a deep breath and think about it.
Legalize it.