Does the Republican Party Actually have a Problem Going Forward?

This obviously depends on the issue. Socially? Not currently. In the future, yes. On abortion both parties can make a strong case that they're on the correct side of the issue. Not in terms of ideology or morals or the like but because polling shows the country evenly split (with only about 30-35% believe no abortion even in the case of rape and/or incest -even see Laura Bush and Mrs. McCain).

When it comes to gay marriage, the social conservatives of the Republican Party are fighting a losing battle. For now, they have won numerous state level bans (every one they've attempted -except in Massachusetts). They'll even continue to do so in the coming 5-10 years, specifically inward of the coast (the next time on the CA ballot it loses). However the younger generation by margins of anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 see gay rights as a civil rights issue and as they get older while more and more generations grow up gay marriage will eventually win so this issue will in fact become a problem for the party.

When it comes to energy policy, depending on the poll 60-70% (so let’s just say 65%) of this country wants more oil drilling. Even those who want more oil drilling generally believe in "all of the above" as well. The problem seems to be more in the rhetoric ("drill baby, drill") than the actual policy stance -at least if we take Sen. McCain's energy policy as the standard bearer of the Republican Party (which we're doing for the sake of this argument). The Republican rhetoric on energy policy is one that acts as if oil drilling is the only answer. That is where their problem lies on the energy front: rhetoric and the message. On a side note: If President-Elect Obama came out saying he'd be for limited oil drilling if the renewable energy plan he wants was part of the package and that was appreciated...would the Republicans who claim to be for "all of the above" put oil drilling ahead of getting started on an energy policy? Would they block President-Elect Obama's energy policy simply if it ended up not including oil drilling to the detriment of this country? Would they accept "something is better than nothing" or would they continue to tolerate today’s status quo?

On less government and government is the problem: this is the huge elephant in the room for the Republican Party. When your party's rhetoric is "government always gets it wrong, we need less government" and then your party has 100% control for 6 years and its standard bearer has an approval rating under 30%, voters put two and two together. It seems they are now in need of defining "less government". Which programs and functions the government should be controlling as opposed to a blanked "less government". This is also a generational gap problem though. Older generations have fears and/or are hesitant with Democrats because they remember the 70's and the 80's before Reagon's lower taxes took hold. For people 30 and under they associate Democrat with Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton with a strong economy. They associate Republican with Bush Sr (who raised taxes) and Bush Jr. That's a huge difference between comparing LBJ/Carter to Nixon/Reagon. We could parse and semantic everything but since the general populace doesn't understand fundamental economics and how government works, and how long things take to actually have an effect in real time, that they simply see the big picture, because of the Clinton years the general consensus of the country is that Democrats run a better economy.

Based on the tax plan that President-Elect Obama ran on, the Republican Party did apparently win the tax argument. Not entirely mind you as Mr. Obama is going to raise some taxes but in the past Democrats just increased taxes on everyone. At least they have the Democrats wanting to lower taxes on some level. Hey, it's a start.

It is very hard to tell whether the Republicans are on the winning side of healthcare. President-Elect Obama ran very much on his healthcare plan and he won but given the anti-Republican environment it blurs whether people actually voted based on liking his healthcare plan. Only about 10% or so of people in exit polling said that was why they voted for him. Well, that only says that 10% or so voted on that as the number one issue, not whether or not all the other votes’ loved/liked/disliked/hated his healthcare plan. It doesn't seem Republicans really have a healthcare platform. Mr. McCain didn't talk much about it and most polling shows his healthcare plan wasn't really taken to. The Republican Party is going to have to decide on what kind of healthcare system they're for as opposed to what they're against as the current status quo on this country's healthcare system isn't seen as good. Not sure that is fair or not but it’s just a matter of fact that people believe healthcare needs reforming.

Socially, this country is in fact still center-right (less and less so as the years go on), especially compared to most of Europe. On Government function however, this center-right claim isn't true. Here is why: Bill Clinton won two terms, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and President-Elect Obama won with the highest percentage of any Democrat. It took until 1994 for the Republicans to control Congress and it took only 12 years for this country to change them out. If you go back to 1960, you had eight years of Kennedy/Johnson, then eight years of Nixon/Ford, then four years of Carter, then 12 years of Reagan/Bush Sr., then eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush Jr., and now at least four years of Obama. So since 1960 by 2012 we'll have had 24 years of a Democrat running the White House and 28 years of a Republican running the White House. During that entire time the Democrats controlled Congress for many more years. What should this tell us? If your party fails to fix what the population believes needs fixing they will fire you and try the other party. This only happens in a Republic designed for the general population to choose its representatives and the general population caring far less about ideology of a political party and more about our government functioning and working for us, the people.

Here is the other problem for conservatives though: When a country lives in the center (yes that is center in front of -right) it is actually progressing. Now liberals and conservatives would argue that isn't true but one could go country by country and show that socially, unless -at times even despite- it is being controlled by a dictator or theocracy, society always progresses. Social conservatives have never won. Even the social conservatives in the Arab world before 2001 were losing the societal battles, let alone now.

Social conservatives failed to stop the elimination of religion from our government (and in recent years have tied the two back together a bit). They failed to stop the end of slavery. They failed to stop de-segregation. Before the attack e-mails or comments for this paragraph come do not confuse the word conservative with Republican or that it is being claimed that today’s conservatives wish none of those things had happened. Of course today’s conservatives are proud of those things ending.

Social conservatives over the course of history have been a part of every political party this country let alone world has ever known. We had social conservatives in the Democrat party fighting against de-segregation and against ending slavery. We had social conservatives in the Federalist Party that believed in slavery and if it ever were to end they should all be shipped back to Africa.

We should make the distinction though between societal conservatives and family values conservatives. Their is some blurring at this point in time as their is really only one issue in today's world that a case can be made for it to be considered both: gay marriage. Societal conservatives essentially don't want the social order of things to change. Family value conservatives are more about believing that a family stays married (no divorce), is a man and a woman, and has kids. That video games and the TV aren't good enough. That parents have to actually parent. They have to instill discipline and the differences between right and wrong.

Look, the Republican Party is going to have to decide whether they are more concerned with governmental conservatism or social conservatism. More concerned with limited but functioning government or social issues. If it is social conservatism, they are guaranteed to lose. They will never become a "big tent" party and in a country where minorities as a whole will become the majority, that's a problem.