In the wake of sweeping Democratic congressional victories and Barack Obama’s electoral drubbing of John McCain, the Grand Old Party is anything but grand these days. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan are long gone; President Bush’s approval ratings are inching closer to Harry Truman’s all-time low of 22 percent, according to a recent Gallup poll; and, perhaps worst of all, the party’s infighting threatens any imminent reconciliation with the American public.

Could Bobby Jindal be the new face of the Republican Party? Photo by Marc V. Genre on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

Conversely, after eight years of a Republican-dominated Washington, Democrats across the country are elated by their return to power. Not since the early days of Bill Clinton have Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House. This immense shift in power, however, is not just bad news for the GOP. It could potentially be detrimental to the entire country. For example, six out of the last eight years have been under Republican control in both Congress and the White House, and that full control threw the U.S. into controversial situations with little opposition. In a two-party system in which one party is virtually ineffective, balance of power becomes a moot point.

So how do the Republicans prevent the tables from turning completely? What does the ailing GOP do now?

With no clear leader at the helm and a major identity crisis looming, the Republicans are heading into an unknown abyss. Congressional races in 2010 will undoubtedly be an important opportunity to regain Republican control in Washington — after all, the incumbent president’s party has lost considerable strength in the House in 23 of the 26 midterm elections since the beginning of the 20th century. But the GOP will also focus on developing their candidates for the presidential election in 2012 to give the party a feasible figurehead.

The party’s 2008 presidential candidates arguably paled in comparison to the unprecedented field of Democratic candidates, which included an African-American, a woman and a Hispanic man. In contrast, the Republicans put forth the usual suspects in their primaries: older, uninspiring, white men who simply seemed out of date compared to the Democrats. But dissatisfaction with the Republican candidates was prevalent within the party as well. A battle raged between social conservatives and pro-business fiscal conservatives, with both sides represented by at least one candidate (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, respectively), and no clear compromise between the two. McCain ended up assuming the role of the “compromise candidate,” but not before a frontal assault from the right.

In 2012, the GOP will need a candidate around whom the party can rally, but who doesn’t polarize independent or even Democratic voters. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, the 37-year-old Indian-American who is both a staunch social and fiscal conservative, has generated the most buzz. His youth and exotic background appeal to voters seeking a fresh face, and his conservative credentials would secure support from his likely voter base. United Press International has already called Jindal and his family “the other Obamas.” If they are to compete with what could very well be a successful incumbent candidate in 2012, the Republicans must put forth a formidable and competitive challenger.

Another option could, of course, be McCain’s former running mate, Sarah Palin. She isn’t necessarily damaged goods after her defeat in 2008, but she didn’t emerge unscathed. National focus on her “Troopergate” scandal and her constant lampooning on Saturday Night Live contributed to a somewhat negative reputation throughout the campaign, but, as Richard Nixon proved in 1968, presidential victory is possible even after previous defeat. Palin would first need to boost her political credentials before even considering another run at the White House, and the opportunity may present itself soon. As Alaska Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens seems poised to win reelection, he also faces probable expulsion from the Senate, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid. If this is the case, Palin could very well run in a special election to fill the void – and in Alaska she would likely be the front-runner, touting her experience as both governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee. Time in the Senate would give her more foreign affairs experience and at least an introduction to Washington politics, both of which many considered her to lack during the general election.

After they find a suitable leader, the Republicans must also reconsider their voter base. Following the skillful assembling of a younger, more diverse coalition by the Democrats, the Republicans have no choice but to court potentially neglected voters– and soon– in an effort to expand their now-shrinking voter base.

Obama won the popular vote by almost eight million votes en route to winning the electoral vote 364-162, with Missouri still counting votes. Though the majority of white voters and Protestants still turned out to support McCain, fewer did than in the 2004 election, according to New York Times polls. Additionally, while 43 percent of Hispanic people voted for President Bush in 2004, only 31 percent supported McCain this time around. This, combined with overwhelming turnout among black and young voters, contributed to a rejuvenated Democratic voter base and, in turn, gave Republicans a grim look at a future of potential electoral disappointment.

Republicans, who usually best the Democrats in voter turnout, must first ensure that their base turns out more in future elections. Furthermore, reconciliation with certain alienated groups, like Hispanics, will be crucial to increasing the voter base and guaranteeing electoral victory. Inevitably, there will be some who are disenchanted with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, so the GOP should try to attract those voters. But Republicans will also need to try to recapture the days of Reagan, when 59 percent of voters aged 18-29 chose the Republican ticket. In 2008, McCain was able to win the majority of voters aged 60 and older, but Democrats either beat or tied Republicans in the other three main age groups.

But perhaps the direst issue for the GOP to consider during this period of reconstruction is their ideology. In recent years the Democrats have run on a progressive platform of more modern policies. They have encouraged the advancement of alternative energy, stem cell research and developing science and technology to prepare future generations for a 21st-century economy. In contrast, the Republicans have focused too heavily on their traditional conservatism: second amendment rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and opposing stem cell research and gay marriage. The GOP’s positions on many of these issues are slowly but surely alienating a large population of voters who want to move past them.

This has been the trend since 1964, when southern Democrats abandoned their party after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and joined the GOP. Upon signing the bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.” Johnson was right in that “those sorts of states” would not adjust to the changing times. In subsequent elections, the Republicans capitalized on the southern Democrats’ disenchantment and eventually adopted them into their camp. Sadly, it seems to be those same sorts of voters that are holding the GOP back today, preventing it from adjusting to the times and becoming a more progressive party for the future. Granted they are the party of faith in tradition, but they must reconcile their conservative values with a changing world without deserting their basic platform.

These next few years will be telling for the once-grand Republican Party. A new wave of untapped politicians will surely be sent into battle to regain power, and the potential of a new, unifying ideology will help the party remain a viable contestant for years to come. The end result, ideally, will be a balanced and more effective two-party system.