Given the option of a bankrupt social security system or an average return of 9% with the market, I think I'd like to take my chances with the market. Maybe you're old and don't care because you're near social security benefits, but I'm young and would like to see something at the end of the rainbow.

The GOP will never regain there credibility if they keep running dummies,bimbos, and crusty old men for president! I'm a republican and I'm ashamed to admit it! I'm not alone, look at the election,more republicans voted for Obama the that crusty old fart and his bimbo.Lets face it Bush and all his crownies (McCain included) did more to get Obama elected than all of his supporters! I think the people are tired of these greedy old S.O.B.s!I know I am and Im a republican?

To Rainmaker:

I'm young too, and I'll tell you a little secret, there won't be any social security money left when we get old either way. If you have any sense about you, you'd stop worrying about it and start buying up stock right now while its at a low price.

As far as the article goes, there has been a large number of articles heralding the death of the Neo-Con Republican Party lately, and while I deeply hope they are right, I fear they are more wishful thinking than reality. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't only a short 4 years ago that the nation elected the Cowboy King, and, if history is any indicator, my guess is that it will take more than one election cycle to end such a fanatical political movement. The fact remains that the Republican Party had to embrace the Evangelicals to become a political majority in recent history and, after such an extensive reeducation of a generation at the hands of Fox News and the Fundamentalist Propoganda Machine, I am not sure they have any other option than to continue down the path of elevating ignoramus after ignoramus to political stewardship of their party. I hate to say it, but they have made the bed and now they have to lie in it; the candidacy of McCain was the theory of the future of the party in practice: The more moderate candidate (McCain) had to spend the majority of his efforts appeasing the religious base which ended up marginalizing the center, and whenever he would try to rectify himself with the center the base cried foul. On the other hand, the candidate who by her own virtue was well beloved by the base (Palin) was too oblivious to her obnoxious level of profound dumbness to even consider attempting to appeal to anyone other than the base. This is the conundrum they have built; a party where extreme and moderate cannot cooperate, and it is largely due to years of feigned concern for the conservative moral agenda from the moderate politicians who abused the simpleminded sheepishness of the religiously fervent Evangelicals. These religious folk have now risen up to overthrow their more moderate masters who they now estimate as being politically unsuccessful, not because they are too divisive but rather not divisive enough in applying the power they wield to enact the "Will of God." In my view, the future prospects of this party remaking itself to be more appealing to the moderates in this country are grim at best; rather, I am predicting we'll see a Palin/Jesus ticket in 2012.

I've long been advocating a new political party - the Reasonables. Ours would be a party that was fact based, practical and - if we have an ideology at all - it would be EFFICACY. Two questions would be paramount - 1) Will it work? 2) Is it constitutional? If the answer is in the affirmative, let's try it!

The reason why the Whigs disintegrated? Sectionalism. It's Northern and Southern wings couldn't paper over their differences regarding slavery. The new Republican Party scooped up many disgruntled Whigs and Know Nothings.

The Federalists broke up because they were reduced to being a regional party (New England).

Do either of these apply to the Republican Party now? Or do they create their own example? If they do crack, history might show that they were reduced to a core of older Evangelicals; Mormons (high birth rate, but still relatively small % of voters, and contained to UT, ID, WY and sections of surrounding states); traditional Catholics; the Deep South (but traces of Democratic voting remain--they don't have the death-grip that Democrats did for 100 years); and now Appalachia. All strong constituents, but not enough to grow and regain power?

Finish the sentence: "The Republicans disintegrated because..."

Burke? Ok, but why when we have Kirk who's understandable? Strauss? You. Can Not. Be. Serious. On the surface, Leo Strauss is convoluted and beneath the surface he's so opague, it is doubtful there is a credible interpreter of a Straussian conservatism--if such a thing exists. Which brings us to Russell Kirk (a diligent reader of Burke). We have in Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles all that's needed to completely understand conservatism.

(can't believe we're enduring yet another former speech writer for Reagan who's clueless about conservatism...man-oh-man, you can't make this stuff up)

While "the way of the Whigs" may not translate exactly into modern terms, the metaphor is apt -- I have used it myself. The Republican party is split over cultural issues perhaps not as dramatically as the Whigs in the middle of the century before last, but with the same result.

Former Senator Rick Santorum and others on NPR yesterday were convinced that the Republican Party should return to its "roots" of social conservatism and smaller government. Not one word about economics (Keynesian or otherwise) not one about science not one about how to deal with the explosive growth of cities acorss the US and the rest of the world.

The America of these reactionary Republicans and VP candidate Palin continues to vanish under the demand for better jobs and increased farm productivity. Even the poorest of jobs in a city is better than backbreaking work and an oppressive cultural atmosphere to the people who have "voted with their feet."

On would have thought that the Republicans, as the party of "business," understood competence in running gigantic organizations. The phrase "run government like a business" used by Republicans as a slogan their power was an excuse to destroy and to loot.

Yeah, it's not about slavery, but it is about competiting systems of thought of cultures. One way leads to bigotry and ignorance and slavery, the other to freedom of ideas, to understanding the world, and to freedom. And Rick Santorum, retired House Speaker Newt Gingrich, radio personality Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah do not "get it" that from the 11th century onward, the role of blind faith was pushed to the side of human activity for the sheer reason that it did not get things done and did not provide a better life for its adherents.

So republicans are beginning to admit that Bush is, beyond an absolute failure, a catastrophic one. Bravo, at some of teh "reformers" can recognize this as a watershed moment.

I wish that Hart had gone into the risks of his politico-historical analysis, re why the Whigs and Federalists failed and what that might teach us.

Move towards the Libertarian side of the Party and away from the Social Conservative side. Done.

Rainmaker: Social Security will not go bankrupt; and the market is no solution, young or not. You forget this is an insurance policy, not a savings account. Yes, if you are healthy and can work to 65, the market might be better -- But if you don't, it will be worse. Just like if you never make a claim on a policy, and chances are you won't, you would have been better off not paying the premiums. Private accounts and market based accounts defeat the "security" in social security. It was never intended to be a mandatory savings account, it was always intended to be a mandatory insurance policy against old-age poverty, and like any insurance premium, your payments go out to pay current claims, they aren't stockpiled for you exclusively when you retire.

I don't think Libertarianism is the answer, they were the proponents of persistent deregulation, after all, and look how much good THAT did us.

Love the title, Change or Die. The religous right is the root cause for the downfall of the Republican Party. Which is also a huge blackmark on American Society. With that in mind, the Democratic Party is not out of the woods either... without Obama, it'd still be in trouble... and that change is but a small part of that which will be required...

I'll extend your title a little further... the American Public must wake up, change, or die. I'm amazed that the populace is this ignorant, in the 21st century. Yes, I'm insulting at least 95% of you. Wake up! Christianity is dead without Gnosticism, Islam is dead without Sufism... only enlightenment will solve the issues of modern society. And that is what our Founding Fathers intended for U.S. to accomplish. Still 95% of you don't get it, and have soul, but no Spirit. That's the difference between the goyim and Us. The constitution separates Church and State, but not understanding and state... which is why we may say In God We Trust on the talisman of the $1 bill. The capstone shall not be united on the Great Seal until this understanding manifests, meanwhile the Invisible Hand will continue in its path of severity, until the populace understands. That was the whole point behind 9/11.

Science today has made great progress, but it's just not yet there either... missing too much of the occult perception.

Ordo Ab Chao

"Teaching intelligent design? Where? Biology class? Not since the 1920s has evolution been a subject of political controversy."

problem of science is not understanding that it is a fusion of inteligent design and evolution. Evolution is present in the bible. From Essau to Jacob... instead of looking for a synthesis the issue is polarizing. The teleological arguement is still a valid paradigm within philosophy and metaphysics... slowly working its way into quantum theory with the idea of information being quasi omnipresent. Further, the Ontological arguement is not circular when nothing is truly understood. Is that not why the Oracle of Delphi Declared Socrates the wisest of them all? "The only good is knowledge, the only evil, ignorance." Surely then, the Republican Party, most politicians, and people... are therefore evil ;->

Even if Republicans could correctly diagnose all their many problems (not likely) and then could find solutions (not likely) it would be impossible to get all of them on the same page to impliment a program to renew their party. Individual liberty can be a mother sometimes.

Face it. Bush put you guys in the crapper and you cheered him on the entire time. Too bad for you. Plus demographics are all against you, and there is absolutely no solution to that one. We are barely beginning what will be a full generation of liberal ascendency. The next Reagan is in junior high right now.

To Abraxas:

Wow. I knew there was a reason why I liked Santana. Very clear description of the energy flow (of the string variety) that flows through all things. Given that it was the efforts of a little known London floor specialist, with an interest in 'magic', who when united with Patton in No. Africa, then reassembled in Dover, so as to so paralyze Hitler, that an end run assault became open through the Norman's Deed and ended the gambit of evil in their time. Perhaps Eisenhower was the symbol, but it was Patton who was the bait, set the trap, and caught the rodent....and three times no less, on two different Continents.

A speech writer for Reagan, huh? No kidding, Jeffrey Hart. It was "your man" (with eager assistance, of course), who was the embryonic life form which grew into the neo-con monster that has consumed America. The GOP stayed too long at the feast and now their gorges are forced to purge the old line and dogma that caused them to loose their grip on America's hearts and minds. And untombing Eisenhower as a new standard bearer! President Ike the golf enthusiast who rode into Washington on the long coat tails of WWII; marketing the Cold War, a political fantasia that America suffered under until Regan defeated Communism. He did destroy Communism, didn't he? He told us so. With all due respect to Mr. Reagan's deification, please verify this Mr. Hart. As an insider you would know.

Back in the day I voted Republican. I did so b/c I identified them as the party most interested in having government stay out of my affairs unless absolutely necessary.

My how times have changed. Along the way the Republicans became the Know-Nothing Party: Anti-Intellectual would-be Theocrats attempting to cram their neolithic worldview down the my throat.

As far as I'm concerned, they now offer nothing except bitterness, division and willful stupidity. The sooner they implode the better this country will be.

To Rainmaker Thanks to assholes like you,and your wall street buddy's we need social security more then ever! Our retirement plans are gone to pay dicks like you there 9%! I hope one day you fall off your wallet and get hurt and can't work! I guarantee you'll change your mind when your sorry ass is in the street.And them wall street buddy's you have,don't ask them for help!Nobody likes you when your down! That's why we pay into SS .To take care of the people no one else will!!

To FNYGY1,

I like the sound of your Reasonables. I founded the Common Sense party along similar lines. Except in my party of 1 the platform revolves around appointing one sage black woman at the helm of the country. If she deems the approach common sense then let's go for it!

It's not like its any worse than trusting all the sage white haired Anglo guys.

Will all respect to Mr Hart, his Beast articles are starting to be a little repetitive. Yep, the Republicans need to do some soul-searching. But maybe there are some other voices the DB should consider publishing as well?

Grizzom-

A wise man once said, "When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both."

I don't have Wall Street buddies, nor have I received a 9% return on my investments at the expense of another. I've lost just as much in today's market as anyone else, but I still understand that the market is a marathon, not a 50-yard dash. Partial privatization of social security, in my view, is a wonderful idea compared to the alternative I'll likely have to face 40 years hence if the system plods on in its current form. Now you can agree with that or not, but understand that you're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. Nobody will say that the current system works. The numbers and projections simply don't support it.

Bravo! Outstanding article. Sanity for a change!!!

Yes, it is an excellent analysis in the main. It will also, very likely, be completely ignored. In the near-to-medium term, I suspect that the Republican party and the conservative brand it represents will become increasingly extreme, anti-intellectual, and ideologically fundamentalist in its orientation.

If so, this is not a positive development for the nation, in my view, because a democratic (small-d) political system functions best when at least two reason-based political parties must compete for votes. The past eight years have been an object lesson in what happens when a democratic political system lacks an effective opposition party. Unfettered power is corrupting, and that remains true irrespective of political ideology.

I, for one, find the prospect of a "permanent" Democratic majority nearly as troubling as I did the prospect of a permanent Republican majority. Unfortunately for all, I suspect that such a state of affairs could become a reality, if the Republicans continue on the irrational course they have charted. Even worse is the prospect of a Republican party that takes power again in its current form. God help us all, if such a thing actually came to pass.

Nothing arouses me like twenty-somethings ( and others) who have fallen for the fear-mongering rhetoric of Republicans about a Social Security "crisis." As if the financial wizards having swallowed the country whole, just can't ignore one more business opportunity left unravaged. Know something people. These are fear tactics. Everyone out there, this is a government of the people and by the people. If American voices loudly yell NO! each and every time a privatization scheme for Social Security is being sold, then these hucksters will look elsewhere for meat. This retirement income, a very modest amount to begin with, is a critical entitlement for Americans who have contributed all their working lives to this fund and would be destitute otherwise. By the way, maybe all those lucky ones who retire and have substantial income from private sources to see them through...should be denied the SS benefit? Think of it. What would that monthly government check say of $1,200 mean to them? A superb bottle of red wine, maybe.

I understand your premise, and I too believe we need a stronger G.O.P. in this country, if only to keep the democrats honest. As a lifelong Democrat, I realize that the longer we remain in power, unchecked, the more likely we are to lose touch with the common man of the party. We all saw this in the seventies, eighties, and early nineties.

We got too big for our britches, and in '94 the Republicans took us rightly to the woodshed. If the Republicans had been a stronger force before '94, I don't think that Democrats would have been so corrupt; this country would be in better shape today.

But, back to your premise, if the Republicans suddenly learned to listen to scientists, they would lose the backbone of their party; the uneducated, redneck white guys from the South and Appalachia. Would 25 electoral votes be worth anything?! Of course the Republican Party must still deny science! Who would all of the ignorant, racist, anti-intellectual people vote for!