let's face it, the highly religious, the ones we here have the biggest problem with, is the base of the Republican Party. given this, news of its imminent demise should thrill most Atheists. and make no mistake, barring a gargantuan shift in policies and rhetoric, they are absolutely on the path towards extinction.
it's common knowledge that the GOP is an old, white party. while not an absolute, that is an accurate enough description of the Republican Party today. two trends to keep in mind here. one, old people tend to die at a faster rate than young people. two, white people are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. they are running out of supporters, and it's happening quicker than many thought.
take yesterday's election. President Obama won over 90% of the black vote and 70% of the latino and asian vote. Romney did well with seniors and whites overall. meanwhile, the country is getting browner. the GOP may end up becoming a whites only club, a nativist and pale collection of isolationists who choose to ignore the changing demographics of the country. worse, they may choose to keep it this way. if they choose this path, their extinction is all but guaranteed. their option would be to abandon their social issues, immigration policies, and economic austery programs and to open up their tent through real policy change.
anyone wanna bet which way they go?
for Atheists, either way is a win. if the GOP becomes irrelevant then the power of the religious right goes with it. if they truly make changes to make more people inclusive and begin to part with their religious base Atheists will celebrate. yesterday's election is better for Atheists than most people would think.
oh booklover - I love your Obama poster from the AHA - I'm gonna add that to my collection.
Cool Steph! I 'stole' it from an Atheist friend ,who was actually my neighbor years ago, and our sons are best friends, on Facebook.
Also old, also white ... and a registered Democrat, so there.
My problem is that I have vague memories of a Republican party which at least attempted to be reasonable and rational and could play nice with the other side of the aisle ... and they did, until Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell came along and decided that religion should be political. The shame is that their BS was tolerated roughly up to 9/11, when all at once, at least SOME people realized that religion of any sort created more problems than it solved.
I see advocacy and two-sided debate as being necessary to any government, ours included, and so I would rather NOT see the GOP fall by the wayside. It may have to reinvent itself, recognize that its move rightward and its excessive association with radical religion has also been a move toward increasing irrelevance and impracticality. The $64 question is whether they can recognize the problems they have created for themselves and extricate themselves from them.
For myself, I hope they can.
Postscript: I was watching the Obama victory speech and Romney concession speech the other day ... and couldn't help but notice the variety of skin colors and ethnicities in the former and the near complete dearth of such in the latter. I can't be the only one to have observed that. Do you suppose the GOP can be bothered to?
regarding your PS - it has been widely noted. much of the talk yesterday was about how the GOP could address this problem. my mom and her husband are outraged that non-whites decided this election, wrongly assuming it had nothing to do with the issues. their tone was that of concern that whites are losing power. and she wonders why i told her that her party is closer to the KKK than representative of America today.
Of course I also observed the opposite - fewer and fewer white people, older people, business type people at the Dem celebration. This was a decisive but far from a "mandate" election like we have had in the past (LBJ, Reagan). One of the reasons I am not as enamored with the President is his use of devisiveness as a political tool. He had a chance to lead the entire country in his first term, when he had a true mandate, and could have reached out to the other party in a meaningful way without sacrificing core convictions, as other successful Presidents have, and again after the mid terms (course correction, ala Clinton). Instead he said 'I won, you lost, get over it'. If he does not learn to be a LEADER (effectively negotiate), we will continue to have stalemate and the country will struggle. He once said "I would rather be an excellent one term than a mediocre two term President." I would rather see him be an excellent 2nd term President at this point, vs. a mediocre two term. Time will tell the answer.
he'll need to do a better job leading, no doubt. although it wasn't for lack of trying. i'm not sure that any democrat could have effectively led this republican house. they were bratty little children, refusing to go along with their own ideas if a democrat brought it up. about 2 years in i think he gave up. this time he's going to have to find a way though. it will be a true test of his abilities, and i hope he's up for the task.
I agree Matthew. And I do believe there is still prejudice against the President. Instead of caring about our country, some people's ONLY agenda was to see him lose. Ha! Maybe they can try caring about our country FIRST and their petty little agendas will not take presidence (sp?) this time, but I have to say I'm a pessimist. I hope President Obama can find a way too of course. It's going to be an uphill battle, but this time around, he's no greenhorn.
He had his best opportunity to work with the Republicans right out of the gates. four years ago. That is when the opposition is most vulnerable. Bush knew this and passed the tax cuts and No Child Left Behind early on. He needed Democrat votes to get these through, including working with Ted Kennedy. (Put aside whether these were good policies, especially No Child Left Behind). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are just a two examples of Republican Senators that would have worked with him. Amazingly he moved them to the right instead of getting their support. As a result - Obamacare was the first big government program that passed with no bipartisan support. Even Bush was able to get bipartisan support for Medicare Part D. He also sought no input for the Stimulus from the Republicans, telling Eric Cantor - "Eric - I won, you lost". His attitude is not one of a leader. Mitch McConnell did not make his famous statement about having as his top priority defeating Obama until mid way through the term. Perhaps if he had been a Senator for more than two years he would have learned how Congress works.
I hope he changes, for the good of the country.
Yep, he is inflexible. Couldn't be that Republicans were hell bent on being obstructionist. They even said that when he was first elected. Nope, it is all Obama's fault.
Loren, are you old enough to remember, from the late 1950s, the Repub far right (the Birchers) calling Pres. Eisenhower a "conscious agent of the Communist Party"?
If you are, you might be able to answer a question I've had for decades: What did the Repubs of that time hope to achieve by throwing their moderates out?
To replace their moderates, they recruited the racist Southern Dems and later the authoritarian religious right.
They committed a very slow-acting form of suicide.
These are people who cannot or will not deal with change, who expect the world not only to be a certain way but to STAY THAT WAY. When they pinned their hopes on Romney and Romney LOST, they're undone, and I suspect if you asked at least some of them, they'd tell you that The End Is Near.
I wasn't wild for the idea of a Romney presidency, but I think I could have managed through it. I will admit to being glad that I don't have to face it. As for other changes, such as gay marriage approved in at least two states, a Lesbian Senator and legalized marijuana in Colorado, I like the first two, will keep my on the third, and keep on keepin' on.
Life is change, people. Get over it.