The GOP will go Sam's Club or go out of business. There is a huge disconnect between this country's political/media classes and the basic realities of working family life in 2008 America.

The Democrats in embracing (or kinda sorta embracing, in BHO's case) UHC and greater tax relief for low- and moderate-income people are not entirely cut off from working families, but both parties and their respective media mouthpieces alternate between cluelessness and outright mendacity when it comes to those monster issues that weigh down anyone trying to raise children on a moderate or low income in this country:

sh*tty schools

a tax code that imposes a marriage penalty while offering next to zip in the way of major, targeted benefits for working families (unlike the very pro-family approaches taken by the French and the scandinavians), as well as the other work-punitive aspects of our Rube Goldberg code

our insane importation of a *second* underclass, and its devastating effect on public services (ERs, schools, criminal justice system, insurance rates etc) in middle-class and low-end neighborhoods,

atrocious schools

the bread-and-circus sh*t wage and sh*t-products-from-China economy that's built on people buying junk they don't need with money they don't have

the outrageously bad schools

Neither party has shown a good-faith effort to address these issues. Instead we have redirects, fibs 'n' fairytales, and dumb kulturkampf stereotypes. And Democratic elites putting their kids in $25/yr private schools and Republican elites availing themselves of hugely generous government-funded health care plans.

Time for a third party focused on US working families. Help the puppies, not the yuppies. Socialism for children and the (means-tested) elderly.

Also, an end to corporate welfare, beginning with Obama's dearly beloved King Corn friends who, more than any single group, have caused the devastation of rural Mexico that's produced the exact opposite outcome from what Al Gore told us would be NAFTA's result, ie an explosion in immigration by semi-literate, desperate Mexican rural dropouts.

Third party time.

More fibs 'n' fairytales, this time on the energy front.

Tweedledum: "We don't need no conservation! Just drill!"

Tweedledee: "We're progressives! We'll make working class families give up their cars, and if they don't, these saps can f***ing well spend a quarter of their after-tax income on gas, and screw 'em if they want their taxes reduced accordingly"

'Dum and 'Dee to working-class America, in unison: "Ha ha, suckers! See ya on the private jet!" ;-)

In a country that's had the same two major parties for 150 years, it's a little odd to hear that either of them will "basically cease to exist" -- as opposed to being taken over by a different political tendency or movement. If it's hard to imagine the Republicans as the Sam's Club party, it was also once hard to imagine them as the Southern anti-civil-rights party, and yet there you have it. Over the course of a generation or so, an American party can come to represent virtually the opposite of what it once did, all while still retaining its old name.

The analysis therefore shouldn't focus on whether something called "the Republican Party" will continue or not, but on what the future of conservatism holds and/or on whether "Sam's Club conservatism" will ever be electorally viable. I haven't read "Grand New Party," but I suspect that it understates the degree to which social and not just economic conservatism is a drag on the current GOP. The media narrative that says that Americans are basically social conservatives has been solidly in place since the Reagan years, but it doesn't square with such indicators as collapsing opposition to gay rights, persistent support for abortion rights, and in general the failure of conservatives to put the brakes on post-1960s cultural and sexual liberalization, women's rights, racial equality, rock'n'roll -- all the progeny of the old "counterculture," which has turned out to be one of the most successful movements in American history.

Of course, average people are still "conservative" and always will be, but what counts as conservative is vastly different from what it was in 1955. To call for a Republicanism based on social conservatism is to aim your sights at a fixed point while your target continues moving on downrange. Switching metaphors, it means you will inevitably find yourself behind the curve, and sooner or later that's going to lose you elections.

teplukhin's list of problems and solutions only addresses half of the Salam-Douthat thesis, the part descibed above as "alleviating their economic insecurity". The other half necessary to Sam's Club politics (by the way, a store that epitomizes the Chinese junk ethos that you decry) is described as "socially conservative, family-centric". We ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. No gay marriage (or gay recognition of any kind by the state!) Compulsory prayer in school. Those beloved "common-sense" limits on abortion. By the way, does anyone doubt that the putative Sam's Club party, with its overwhelmingly white, security-mom base, will be fully in favor of shredding any limits on torture, as long as it is Muslim foreigners being drowned.

Which is more likely?  That the Republicans abandon their insane economics while paying something more than lip service to the social concerns of the working (and a good portion of the middle) class?  Or that the Democratic party will continue to try to represent the economic interests of working families while ending it's reflexive allegiance to NARAL and gay rights?

Neither is probable, but when it comes to winning elections, I'd wager on the latter.

mcorey-geo, I can safely say that, were such a Sam's Club party to ever exist (unlikely as that is), you will find plenty--such as myself--who will oppose prayer in school and torturing anyone.  Pro-choice and pro-gay rights advocates are not unique in their opposition to such things.

When gas is north of $5/gallon, the kulturkampf is a sideshow. The national economy may or may not enter a period of stagflation, but lower-middle American families are now facing and will continue to face, fo many years, rising prices for essential goods (gas milk meat etc) combined with diminished economic opportunities. Working families are not mobile. They can't simply pick up stakes, load up their little Prius and chug across country in pursuit of new opportunities. They're rooted. aka "stuck."

And neither party's leaders have any real sense of the challenges faced by these 50m or so households. Trust me, if gas keeps rising, one or the other party will begin to fragment. There will be a major political realignment-- maybe not this year or in the next year or two, but in the next 5-10 years.

yeesh Tep, are you a downer today. Of course people can pick up and go. Have you never heard the phrase "nothing left to lose" and who do you think populated all of those new developments in Nevada and Arizona if not working class people in search of a better life. I myself haven't lived in a place for more than 3 years for 20 years, even when I worked for the some place for 11 years I moved to better places as time went by. Even with gas prices being as high as they are, I drove from Southern Mexico to Pa. and back again 6 times now and it was still cheaper than flying my family.

I don't believe for a second their will be a third party. When Bush goes, so goes Bushism, if McCain goes down in 4 or 8 or even 12 years another Republican will package himself in such a way to win again.

Let us not get stuck in "things are terrible now, so they will always be so" frame of mind.

Have a little more faith Tep. I grew up, as did  you, during stagflation and the huge recession of Reagan's first term.

Short term, the future will be terrible, medium to long term, great. Very long term Quien Sabes?

blackton - I'm seeing more and more evidence that the peak oil thesis is correct. Which would change everything. We can't retool our entire auto-based infrastructure and suburban-based employment and economic model anytime soon. If oil gets to $7/bbl it will be a disaster for not the elites, or even highly mobile information workers, but definitely for that majority of Americans that is not mobile and that cannot bike or take the bus to work.

Neither party has a _truly_ pro-family agenda. That's the opening for a third party. A truly pro-family agenda would entail massive changes to the tax code to make it FAVOR working families over childless yuppies and people whose wealth is staggered toward capital gain. Plus a huge f-you, and big spending cuts, for each party's sacred cows that are blocking progress on the above issues. Especially as regards Big Agriculture and the Educationist lobby.

Those are the very people who pay for the media - Asia already has a start down the track while we are still unsnarling the shoe strings.

Rush Limbaugh had nothing but bad things to say about the book and Brooks's column today. But he also went to great lengths to avoid muttering the title of the book, as well as the names of the authors.

The GOP might be in better shape than it seems. McCain is doing surprisingly well on national security give the failure of the Bush administration. I suspect McCain will loose, but Iraq will be a tricky issue for Obama and the GOP may be able to use it as an issue in 2010 or 2012. Also, the GOP may have an opportunity to regain the high ground on fiscal responsibility. It won't happen in this election, but if Obama doesn't keep the deficit under control the GOP may be able to go after him on it. If Obama does try to control the deficit that means tax increases which will not be popular. Finally Obama will have lots of opportunities to take unpopular stands on cultural issues during his presidency. The GOP may eventually be able to take advantage. After the 2004 election Dems looked to be in bad shape, now the GOP looks like it is in bad shape, but politics can change fast so I will believe the end of the GOP when I see it.

Republicans should focus on winning the west back, Barack stole it right out from underneath them mostly by being honest and reasonable alone. And Bush and his southern fried corrupt Republicans are so loathed out there, Obama didn't even have to mention immigration to do it.  Ideologues need not apply (Arnie).

The first charismatic Republican figure who:

a) speaks in authentic, non-kooky western liberatarian speak (Ron Paul and Barr do not qualify),

b) focuses like a laser beam on greening the economy (ignore this at your own peril, Republicans),

c) gently plays the "lower taxes/smaller govt" sontatas for old time sake,

d) finds a way to thread the needle on immigration without xenophobia (or the latin vote will bury you),

e) stops concocting think tank, media-friendly categories like "Sam's Club Republicans" (another beltway habit Barack is smart enough to loathe, which is much appreciated in the West).

f) address economic insecurity in working families, as Tep says -

will win these people back in one election cycle.  The Republican party is not dead, it's dormant.

Noam's right.  The conservatism traditionally espoused by the Republican Party is primarily grounded in the economic self-interest of the monied overclass, a group which has never constituted more than a minority of the American electorate.  These conservatives have always needed to persuade a sufficient number of less-affluent voters to overlook their own self-interest, usually through demagoguery.  As the last 35 years have shown, this strategy works for as long as a majority of voters believe that their own standing in society is being looked after.  But eventually they will come to realize they've been had, as is happening now.

Bottom line, the term "Sam's Club Republican" is really an oxymoron.  And the "new conservatism" advocated by the likes of Douthat and Salam sounds more and more like good old-fashioned Rooseveltian liberalism.

Hah!  There is nothing wrong (in the sense of not working) with the current GOP formula: the moneyed eliite use fear to keep themselves in power so that can pursue their own agenda.  This is SOP for ruling parties the world over and it works.

The GOP plan has worked time and time again and is still working today.  Fear of communists (still somehow in play), fear of Islamo-fascist terrorists, fear of crypto-Muslim Manchurian candidates.  It all works and it never ends.  There is always a new fear to play upon.  Look at the history.  But for Ross Perot, Watergate and some dead citizens voting in Chicago, the GOP would have had a clean sweep of the White House since Truman.

I know it is hard for TNR faithful to concede, but as far as national elections are concerned the Republicans have dominated. Hell, they got W elected on this formula so nothing is impossible.  When was the last Democratic landslide on the scale of 1972 or 1984?  Once the Dixiecrats realized Reconstruction had ended, the demographics have tilted the playing field.

Despite it 7.5 years of W and McCain's incompetence, BHO is in for a dogfight and is could well lose.

Richard Hofsteadter was truly an American politics prophet and he saw the power of a party running on fear and explained the reasons for it's appeal.  Deeply rooted in the American psyche is the notion that being an "American" is nothing more than deeply accepting the notion of self-government, democracy and other liberal ideals. And therefore, American identity is a fragile thing.  But unfortunately, the Founders were 18th century classical liberals who were moneyed property owners and therefore had a very limited view of who could qualify for citizenship.  As time went on, the American economic and social elite used the illusion of a strong democracy as a tool of controlling the common American.

This is not to say that there is the American class system is not dynamic (it is) or that there is a "vast right wing conspiracy" (there isn't), or that American freedoms are illusory (they are not), but the members of the moneyed class have competing self-interests, (both political and social) horizontally AND vertically.  A Wall Street titan doesn't want his taxes raised, but he also wants to enjoy his porn videos.  The Southern plant owner wants deregulation, but also wants traditional cultural mores in the media.  Thus, the puppet masters of the GOP will align with the commoner as it serves their interest, sometimes against their economic colleagues. The difference at this moment of history is that the traditional bogey men, such as race, are loosing their appeal (though still very potent).  

Most members of the white middle class who are not ready to trust the Dems and are indeed sincerely offended by the extremes of socially liberal "elites," see the traditional bogey men as not all that scary after all --  (blacks and gays are regular people too).  But they realize that the present GOP is pandering to them and screwing them at the same time.

9/11 stalled and partially reversed the left-center realignment that started at the end of Bush I's single term and continued under Clinton.  (I suspect that if Gore were more charming to the electorate and the media didn't sleep on its coverage of W., the 2000 election would not have even been close and Gore would have decisively won).  The GOP made Saddam the new and more lethal Willie Horton in 2004 and only the Republicans could be trusted to be tough enough to take him on.

Because the war in Iraq was a failed venture all around (we didn't even get cheap oil as a result), the general public has realized that Saddam was just another bogey man.  If Obama were (recognized) as white or if a white, reasonably charismatic  (and male) candidate for the Dems emerged, the race against McCain would be easier for the Dems.  So, following Hilliary Clinton's lead, the GOP needs to bring out the tried-and-true bogey men of black anger/undeserved entitlement/affirmative action, combined happily with post-9/11 anti-Muslim sentiments, to try to win.  

So far, those attacking Obama have played variations on these bogey men.  Again, this is not to say that any critic of his candidacy are racists or not raising legitimate concerns. However, much of the criticism of Obama focuses on the "he's black, lookout" riff.  His "inexperience" is a concern -- but wait a minute.  How experienced was W.when he was elected? The GOP theme back in 2000 was essentially, yeah, he sort of is inexperienced, but he's a likable born-again Christian (no Monicas here!!), who you'd love to have a beer with and he'll have all of his dad's "experienced" guys around him -- so don't worry.

Obama's "inexperience" subtly refers to his identity as being black -- hey, he's clearly an affirmative action guy and you know, black politicians always screw up -- look at David Dinkins' failed administration -- look at D.C., Marion Barry.  

The point is, yes, Obama will have a tough and ugly road before him and may in fact loose.  But this should not be viewed as evidence of GOP health, just their spin doctors' ability to keep that life support machine going.

To reiterate what some have said here:

1) Yes, the Republican Party as we know it will "die", just as it "died" when Teddy Roosevelt came to power, or how the Democratic Party "died" when FDR came to power. And by "die" I mean "change" in every way but name. Parties rarely die; they evolve. And the odds of a successful third party rising in a winner-take-all electoral system like ours are slim to none.* Noam should know that.

*Yeah, the UK has a somewhat successful third party - the Liberal Democrats - but that's mostly due to the weird government hierarchy between the regions ofd the UK and the hot debate over devolution of government power to those regions. Luckily, this country has never been concerned with nerdy questions about states' rights...right?

...is set for Thursday evening at the New America Foundation. (Click here for more info.) I'll be

Earlier this year, in a back and forth with Ross Douthat , I argued that reformist conservatives like