I'm going to start with my Caveat: I was born approximately a week before the USSR began to really unravel. I never lived through any of conservativism's grand success. I grew up with Rocky IV and Red Dawn as cable TV staples. But I've never lived in a world where the US wasn't the global superpower.
Based on my limited life experience, I'm going with "it was all a lie". My childhood was defined my my parent's various failings and incompetence, and as a teen I desperately needed to believe I could pull myself up by my own bootstraps. I liked conservative principles. Work hard and succeed. A foreign policy that made the whole world safer (after all, I didn't want to live in my dumpy town forever!) Balanced budgets! I read Charles Krauthammer's column every Friday. He seemed smart. George Bush seemed to be authentically well-intentioned to me (PEPFAR, No Child Left Behind) and I bought into the Team America let's invade Iraq schtick. John McCain seemed like a good embodiment of teenage Maggie's value system.
In retrospect, I think my parents were motivated by entirely different things. Things weren't going well for them; they wanted people to blame. Rush Limbaugh offered that to my dad, in spades. Blame Dems, blame women, blame immigrants, Let's Go Buchanan, that was my dad. My mom was looking for validation that she had done the right things, and that her problems weren't her fault. I think the "moral majority" stuff really spoke to her. They were both looking for a bail out. McCain ticked their boxes, but he didn't excite them, at all. In 2016, Trump is basically the antithesis of everything I have ever believed in and the embodiment of everything I despise the most in America. He's a hard no for me and meanwhile they're lapping it up. All of it! (I then realize that I actually share no values with the people who raised me, have an existential crises, vote for Gary Johnson, and perm my hair.)
I'm sympathetic to the intellectual merit of the Cargo Cult theory and the demographic change theory (I studied abroad in France while Jean-Marie LePen was handing over the reigns of Le Font National to his daughter.) But for anyone my age, it's a hard sell that the Republican party has any real moral, philosophical, or policy underpinning.
Some may notice the folks born any time after 1980 all come down on the side of, 'it was always bullshit"
If you came up in the 80's and 90's, chances are you find the charlatan nature of the political and religious right completely transparent. And as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Charmed and impressed. Similar story, but earlier.
But... honestly don't understand... Gary Johnson? Or any meaningless vote or non-vote? I never got that disaffected...could be a generational thing I guess.
I was living in one of the least-swingy states in the country at the time (NY) and I did feel that disaffected and 3rd party seemed like a way to make my overall displeasure with candidate quality known to the powers that be. I do think that HRC was a morally compromised candidate (attitude about the email scandal, dismissive of criticism, enabled husband to treat women poorly) and felt like both parties were asking me to tolerate a rotten candidate because the other candidate was worse. Frankly, I thought Gary Johnson was dim, but admired Bill Weld. I do in retrospect view it as a silly decision, akin to perming my hair. Had I lived in say, PA at time I think I would have held my nose and voted for HRC.
I think like a lot of people, I find core concept of libertarianism to be appealing (live and let live!) but it's leading advocates are totally unwilling (unable?) to wrestle with the inherent contradictions. Libertarianism, like "small government conservatism", doesn't seemed particular attuned to the needs of the moment: banks collapsing, trains derailing, Ukraine war, school shootings. I do still admire the commitment to classical liberalism that you in some hardcore Libertarians. The ones that get worked up over extrajudicial police killings and free speech issues and gay rights.
"Was MAGA always the inevitable endpoint of conservatism?"
The answer is Yes.
But that requires us to properly understand just what "Conservatism" is. We need to distinguish it from Liberalism - which is the political philosophy of individual rights and limited government which dates back to the Age of Revolutions in the latter 18th century. The Liberal Revolution smashed the Ancien Regime, otherwise known as the Patriarchate, that throne-and-altar conception of society as organized in terms of vested hierarchy and privilege. The cardinal value of this Regime was ANTI-equality. They understood "freedom" in terms of knowing your place and fulfilling your God-given role in society. Liberalism was aimed like a dagger at this worldview and this anthropology.
Conservative values are the values of Patriarchy. The Patriarchate/the Ancien Regime was brought down by Liberalism, but Patriarchal *values* persist. And not for no reason - Patriarchal values were essential to keep civilization going, when zero-sum competition reigned, levels of economic productivity and technological innovation were in the basement, and life was nasty, brutish, and short.
Those values are less practical for us today, but they still have a tight grip on the minds of many. And one of the most enduring aspects of the Patriarchal worldview is the DENIAL of true universal political equality. The Conservative doesn't *really* believe that we're created equal.
Conservatives are not to be confused with Right-liberals, who really are very different from them. Right-liberals value political equality, but they value individual liberty and small government (which is not to be equated with limited government) more. One of the biggest differences is that Conservatives are permanently tempted by the attractions of authoritarian conservative populism (more succinctly referred to as Fascism), while Right-liberals are diametrically opposed to the Fascists.
The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists; their interests are aligned to the extent that they are skeptical of the Left-liberal emphasis on egalitarianism and a robust measure of equality of outcomes.
We are seeing now however how that coalition is exploding, spectacularly - and in a manner which threatens to bring down the Founders' Experiment.
This label-clarifying is apt and quickly explains where we are, in terms of strong undercurrents that are not always readily visible. Unfortunately, the distinction between "conservative" and "right-liberal" is not going to be appreciated and adopted very far beyond these virtual pages.
So: The Burke>Buckley>Reagan tradition is not "conservative", but rather "right-liberal" in nature. Until Trump and with the exception of the brief George Wallace campaign, neither party was "conservative", yet there existed a substantial part of the population that was. The "right-liberals" courted the "conservatives" as a means of achieving power. But the "conservatives" were more numerous, and engaged. Eventually, some pied pipers appeared, in Gingrich, Buchanan, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Trump, and now Carlson, to steer the believers in patriarchy toward seizing influence from the "right-liberals". The latter now hang out at the Bulwark, the Dispatch, and so forth; the former fly their Trump flags high and contemplate the virtues of political terrorism.
In my view, the modern Republican Party has become a partnership for raw power, not an entity based on agreed policy objectives. It is funded at the national and state levels by the oligarch wannabes, aided and abetted at the local level by small-business owners, and reliant upon the everyday fans of patriarchy and rigid social structure (especially in the lower tier) to win elections. Their mutual dependencies provide powerful incentives to stick together.
This is *exactly* my point of view on what has happened. (Though I would make the addendum that the Slaver-society of the Old South was Conservative to the core.) Thanks for unpacking it further...!
Wow. Up until I read this, I just assumed Conservatives were being insincere when lobbing "RINO" bombs at anyone and everyone breaking with TFG. Turns out support for the TFG is an efficient means of sorting this coalition into Right-liberals and Conservatives.
There is also a significant cross-term; where Right-liberals are radicalized into "fascist-like" as a result of Sarah's triangle-of-doom and the inability to ever admit you've been had.
This is good. This definition of conservative makes it an un-American political theory. It’s strange to think that one time Republicans were radical liberals and Democrats were upholding the ancien regime of slavery. Principles around individual freedom and rights of association allied to a framework for self government that recognized a pre-existing pluralistic nation is such a strange and unusual thing. No wonder it struggles to grow outside the US.
Yes, I would say that Conservatism is un-American; but the thing is, is that Conservatism involves the persistence of a very old (and in earlier historical contexts, very practical) worldview. Perhaps the real conclusion to draw - as you are drawing here - is what a radical break Liberalism represents, from past beliefs about human nature. (I capitalize "Liberalism" to indicate that it compasses both the Right- and the Left-wings of a common Liberal tradition).
The Republican Party WAS the party of Lincoln. Yes, they were progressive. Many Democrats were the party of segregation in the South, in my lifetime...Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace, were all Dixiecrats. I remember all of them. My father voted for George Wallace when he ran for president in 1968. He was popular with young, blue-color men, in the South and Midwest. How things change.
"The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists"
I don't get this. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see why a pro business/socially liberal person would find the Christian Right to their liking. When I think of the Christian Right I see a group who is see paternal and socially conservative.
It seems they would be absolutly the opposite of one another.
The problem is that your pro-business/socially liberal types always thought they could humor the Nat Cons to get their votes, but keep them quiet with red meat to chew on, but they lost control.
Up until I think 2004, it was blue blue blue because of the solid support for unions. Populist economics. (Manchin being a relic of this era, a Democratic governor before the flip.
It was all a lie, but not the lie Stuart Stevens refers to, i.e. it was always about race. No, what it was about what was satisfying a wealthy donor class that wanted lower taxes and limiting non-security related spending, starting in the 60s and really coming to total domination by the 1990s and the Gingrich era. I say this because what Republicans in the modern era are not flexible on, the non-negotiable policy is lowering taxes, shrinking the non-security parts of government, or other economic policies that favor the very wealthy regardless of whether they benefit others (note, this does not include actually avoiding deficits). Republicans have demonstrated they are in fact flexible on racial issues, on cultural issues, on religious issues, on foreign policy, both rhetorically and substantively. They are quite willing to run up deficits. They are flexible rhetorically a la some tepid forays like TFG's or Rubio's into populist, working class rhetoric, but not substantively on taxes and spending, and that is the big clue as the real driving factor behind their behavior. That is, the one principle they do not violate. The specific path they took to where we are in 2023 is contingent on a number of factors, but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population, and probably in most cases the country as a whole, yet win national majorities.
Reagan was free to denounce racism, while other Republicans were free to cater to white grievance, as their political circumstances dictated. They could be hawkish or isolationist. Social conservative or libertarian, the tent was big enough. What they could not do is raise taxes.
Why is Reagan remembered so much more warmly than George HW Bush? HW actually successfully oversaw the far more difficult process of winning the Cold War by helping manage the actual collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire in a peaceful manner. He won the Iraq War and managed a vast international alliance to do so. His cardinal sin was denouncing supply-side economics as voodoo and supporting a tax hike, resulting in a third-party challenge by a plutocrat who was forced to pay higher taxes, Perot's actual reasons for running being incidental. Even if he was personally sincere, how many other angry plutocrats were whispering in his ear and why?
It was pretty clear by '09 that Republicans didn't actually care much about deficits or shrinking govt. spending as a whole, and it was pretty clear the economic system wasn't doing much for the little guy. Wages were stagnant, increases in GDP were almost all being captured by the wealthiest, and public services and infrastructure were declining, from schools, to roads, to water. It had become ever more clear since the 1980s than supply-side economics didn't work and increased deficits, and Republicans had overseen massive deficit increases without much complaint, up to and including Cheney's comment that Reagan proved deficits don't matter (politically). It was getting harder and harder to argue the economic plans were helping the little guy, but the economic plans couldn't be changed or disavowed. The Iraq War blunders had left foreign policy not exactly a strength, and foreign policy wasn't really an election winner in any case. What to do?
Well, with a black president and changing demographics, racial grievances became a lot more useful in distracting people from the economic reality. They were so emotionally committed to the grievance they would happily swallow alternative facts on everything else. And consider the outrageous, the over-the-top lies and distortions about Obamacare, the death panels. Every other developed country has some form of national health care or or national health insurance plan. Their per capita medical costs are substantially lower than the US with on average better outcomes. If you've got the money, you're free to buy the best care money can buy at home or abroad. It would help many of your constituents. Rectify inefficient and wasteful medical spending. Lower medical costs for the nation as a whole. Why was this the hill to die on?
It broke their one rule.
Even then, post-Romney, the autopsy calling for greater outreach to new groups of voters, not increased focus on racial grievance, because that hadn't worked. And that was fine, just fine. But TFG came out of nowhere and demonstrated that with the right mix of racial and cultural grievance, that was the winning combination. Why, you could even preach a populist economic message, you could denounce business, you could promise to spend on infrastructure, you could even play protectionist. The rubes would, in fact, fall for it. And as a demonstrated winning formula, that's the road they chose. As long as Putin wasn't preaching communism, let him have Ukraine. Why, as long as he doesn't actually practice communism, a reconciliation with Xi and China is in the cards if that's politically expedient. As long as no one breaks the one rule.
Have you actually read Stuart Stevens’ book? If you have, then maybe you need to read it again because racism is really just the first chapter (though there are references elsewhere). When he says “it was *all* a lie - he literally means *all* of it - including the lie about fealty to tax cuts aa a reflection about deeply held values about fiscal responsibility (chapter 3) which cover much of the same ground you do here. He also discusses the “lie” about a deep commitment to “family values” (chapter 2) and the lie about “Patriotism” and defending democracy abroad (chapter 7). It was *all* a lie backs up every claim it makes with overwhelming support (I know because I looked up every footnote and original source I could access). But the most important point is that it wasn’t written by a Democrat but someone who spent his entire career (which is probably longer than JVL has been alive) working for Republicans. If you can’t bring yourself to completely buy in to his opinion, it might be because it’s incredibly disconcerting to come to terms with the fact that the party and the principles and the political heroes you supported for so long were largely an illusion - a “mind palace” built on sand.
It was all a lie. I haven't read Stevens' book, but I agree that the claim of fiscal responsibility was a lie, as well as the other items you cite. But the fealty to tax cuts of the top rates is definitely a thing. Follow the money. The only immutable Republican/Conservative principles are those benefitting the wealthy. Everything else is negotiable based on whether it aids in gaining the power to achieve that goal.
Recognizing that racism was just a strategy rather than a core principle does not minimize the culpability for the extent to which the Conservative movement and the Republican party fanned an appeal to it in order to win elections. It is and was deplorable. It just wasn't largely what the establishment was focused on, other than to win elections. On the other hand, for their voters, sure. That's how the party cultivated them.
Stevens makes the same point about fealty to tax cuts of the top rates as almost the only thing Republicans were unwilling to compromise on. So forgive me for being unclear. He just says that it didn’t really reflect seriousness about fiscal responsibility because you can’t have massive tax cuts while also increasing spending by something like 186%. People think of Reagan as some great fiscal conservative but he ranks among the top 4 or 5 Presidents who were responsible for ballooning the federal deficit. In fact, he started that ball rolling! And unlike FDR who was fighting a massive Depression and a World War or Obama who had inherited the worst economic crisis of the time as well as two ongoing wars, Reagan’s main issue was a Cold War. And we can argue whether or not that merited the huge increase in military spending but it has been a feature to increase it ever since - whether in peace time or in war.
The only Republican President after that who was serious about fiscal policy and called Reagan’s trickle down economics “voodoo economics” was George HW Bush who was correct as history would bear out. His biggest sin was compromising with Democrats so he could cut spending by increasing taxes. And he was destroyed for it - by both the right and the left!
Even though because of what he had accomplished, Clinton was able to leave the White House with a budget surplus instead of a deficit! And instead of being praised for that by Republicans who claimed to care about fiscal responsibility, he was constantly maligned by Newt Gingrich for silly things like increasing spending for food stamps by something like an extra $2000/year.
This may sound like I support progressive policies like massive government spending and drenching the rich in taxes which I don’t! I believe in trying to balance budgets and bring down our federal debt to a number my brain has the capacity to conceive. After reading Stevens’ book (which is fantastic and you really should read!) I no longer believe that most Republicans leaders and voters - especially after Reagan ever sincerely believed in actual fiscal responsibility.
They love to raise a hue and cry about entitlement reform or repealing Obamacare or bailing out banks or Covid stimulus checks or student debt relief (much of which they’re justified on) but have they ever proposed a serious plan to curb spending on these of these issues?!?! Even when they controlled the WH and both houses of congress? No! Because these things are not popular with the base.
The only cards they play are cutting taxes while increasing spending, rolling back regulations and petty fights about the debt ceiling.
Then predictably they blame Democrats for being “fiscally irresponsible”, not doing enough to prevent pandemics and train disasters and bank collapses which were are systems that probably should be regulated based on the domino effect their failures cause. And somehow convincing voters that raising the debt ceiling is a “responsible” thing to do instead a fancy term for defaulting on loans, decreasing our credit rating and throwing the markets in to a mass panic.
Sincere belief in fiscal responsibility? Yeah - it was all a lie.
Makes sense. But I highly recommend it! I’ll admit learning about some of the behind the scenes details came as a bit of a shock (which is why I felt compelled to check the references) but it’s always helpful to understand the roots of a problem if you’re serious about trying to solve it.
My only quibble (if you can call it that) is that the last chapter is entitled “How Lies End” and while it does give a shout out to people like Mona Charen and Bill Kristol, it’s mostly an expression of despair for what the Republican Party has become and doesn’t offer many concrete solutions about changing it. So just up to places like the Bulwark I guess and the people who support them. I pray to God there are enough of us.
I also never understood while GHW Bush didn't get more credit as a president, and I totally buy your "he broke the rule" logic. Reagan told them to tear down the wall, Bush made sure they actually did it!
You tell us, "but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population."
Good point, but we know how they sell this to the base; white grievance.
Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance.
When we follow the links in your analysis, it actually supports Stevens' thesis.
"Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance."
Exactly. That is *why* the party of Lincoln traded voters with the party of the Confederacy. To gain the seats of power in order to feed the rich and bleed the poor, as you said.
As a second generation Mexican-American who grew up in Los Angeles in the 90s, my choice is, and always will be, “it was all a lie.”
I’m a moderate D, and I will never even consider voting R because as I was becoming politically aware, my view of the Republican Party was Gov. Wilson and prop 187 here in CA. I’m sure the other elements played a part in all this, but I’ve always been sensitive to the overt racism spewed by the party.
It’s easy to overlook when your appearance codes WASP, but it’s super obvious if you don’t.
I didn't see this until 2016. I knew the racism was there but I thought it was a bug, not a feature.
I was a blue-collar white girl, intent on pulling my self up by my own boots straps, all about the hustle, doing odd jobs under the table for cash, gig work. All through high school, all through college, into medical school. It should be no surprise, many of my coworkers where first generation immigrants (or their kids) or Black. I went to a HBCU for summer classes, and met a lot of kids who were dealing with the same challenges (plus some big extra ones) as me. Work/school combo. How to get places without a car. Where to sleep over the summer. How to minimize student loan debt.
I was a Republican voter based on my values (hard work! Succeed!) and then in 2016, it became obvious to me that the Republican party had turned on the people actually living conservative values. I identified more with my Mexican co-workers and Black classmates more than I ever could with the likes of Trump, I was utterly disgusted and bewildered because this vehemently racist talk was coming from my family. And they were hating on the people who lived life the same way I did and it absolutely crushed me, and I've never gotten over it.
Having lived in a working class immigrant community for the last 30 years, their traditional views are more inline with many Republican traditional views, They are socially conservative, family oriented, entrepreneurial, hard working. They should be a natural fit except of course for the racism. When the Bush family moved away from anti immigrant rhetoric the Republicans got a larger share of the Hispanic vote.
BTW, the same can be said about the African American community. On the political spectrum they are just as diverse as the rest of the nation but the they vote solid Democrat because of racism.
Another thought, as moderate and conservative whites move to the Republican party, African Americans are the moderating force within the Democratic party. They are the reason we have candidate Biden rather than candidate Sanders.
I live in Montgomery County MD, the deep blue heart of Maryland, allegedly. Except that we and Prince George’s county next door are also home to Latino and West African immigrant communities. All of whom are socially conservative, entrepreneurial, religious and family-oriented...stop me if you’ve heard this before. If we ever get immigration sorted out, look for these groups to be leading Maryland’s political realignment.
i only have a moment, so let me just say that your discussion of point #1 is why so many of us think that you are the best working political analyst in america today.
My view: I believe it is a combination of all three, with #2 being the driving factor. There is no question in my mind that the racists and neo-fascists have long been a part of the Republican party, but I believe they were relegated more towards the fringe of the party (in the same way that anarchists and other fellow travelers have been on the fringe of the left). In a two party system, most people are going to associate with one of the two parties, even if neither party is a perfect fit, and there is no effective way (in my opinion) to exclude these undesirables from your party. You can only hope to keep them sidelined. Over the past twenty years, though, our society has become more and more tribal, so that it really does not matter what your party does or stands for anymore, because they're your tribe. The other party is and always will be the enemy (i.e., I have friends in both parties who would rather eat nails than admit Presidents Bush or Obama, respectively, did anything right). If the illiberal left were to take over the Democratic Party, would we be conducting this same analysis for them? I suspect so. Sometimes, it feels like we are heading towards the same place Europe was in the 30's, where your choice was either Hitler's fascism or Stalin's communism. But this may just be my anxiety talking. My hope is that if the nutcases currently ruling the Republican roost continue to lose at the polls, the voters will push them out in favor of the traditional conservatives that can win elections (this is where the cargo cult option comes into play).
Why I may be wrong: It's possible that the Republican party has always been a lie, and I just do not want to confront that truth. I grew up in a Democratic household (my dad and brother are both rabid supporters of labor unions), but I decided that the Republican party was the party for me when I was in college (for reference, this would have been in 1998). While I believed in the stated ideals of the Republican Party (i.e. meritocracy and individual freedoms), frankly it was mainly because I believed that the Republican Party was the more realistic and common sense party. That is clearly no longer the case, though, if it ever was.
That's a good and logical summary of the two-party system of today. I do have to say that the extreme liberal-to-the-point-of-being -illiberal faction of the Democratic party is microscopic, whereas the extremist right-wingers seem to presently run the Republican party, and many of them literally seem to be insane.
I reckon the first explanation has the majority of the explanation, however I (or it) could be incorrect or missing a key element that's related to white grievance, but also different. That aspect is something I'll call "general resentment" (for which white grievance falls under).
I'm from small town, rural Iowa. I got out, got an education, and now live in the Des Moines metro. There are a lot of people within my own family back there who will say they're happy for me, but in reality, they resent (and even kind of hate) me. They know damn well I had their exact same political sentiments once upon a time, but those sentiments changed once I got an education, saw other parts of the country, and ultimately settled down away from them. Living a life that's different and more convenient than there's is seen as an act of betrayal and goddammit, that's unacceptable. So you bet your ass they're going to vote for the guy/party that promises to stick it to those educated comfortable assholes. We're the REAL Americans, not those "pussified" city dwellers with their Starbucks and Priuses.
I think Tom Nichols said it a week or two ago that there is this idea on the right that the left constantly obsesses about them and how they live their lives when the reality is that the majority of the people in question don’t think about them at all. If we could actually go back to that, we *might* have a shot at making it through this current crisis.
Heh, and yet here we are analyzing what's gone wrong with the right in this country. :-)
Where we're at with tribalism has resulted in lots of (usually simplistic, often ridiculous) assessment of the other side. And, interestingly, very little analysis about what one's own side ought to be doing to help the country. (Yes, I do believe the right is worse in both categories, but the left is game for the chase.)
No doubt it's a tangent. But, that happens often in the comments here.
However, I'd argue it's somewhat relevant. The obsession about the other side may be the primary driving force in current politics, especially on the right. While we often see potentially constructive policy proposals from Biden, et al, what do we see on offer from the GOP? Tax cuts? Border walls? Book banning?
Further, while this sort of thing is a tangent for the current piece, I'd argue it's right in the wheelhouse for the newsletter, generally.
It is the driving force. But I think for two very different reasons. When we look at the animating forces on the left for grievance it revolves around equal rights (mostly) for marginalized communities to live as themselves. On the right, the grievances seem to revolve around the world changing too quickly. This isn’t to make the left seem noble, I’m just looking at the issues that drive the respective bases to anger.
"On the right, the grievances seem to revolve around the world changing too quickly."
And you know, that is sometimes a valid grievance. It is very well established within human nature that some people are just naturally resistant to change. The cultural left often doesn't help this either in that they can often jump on the first shiny new object without thinking it through (e.g. Latinx, Defund the Police, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, etc.) and then automatically shame those who are like, "no that's stupid". It's a Facebook video, but Jim Jeffries did a bit on about how the youth are quick to jump on (albeit accurate) accusations of bigotry, without realizing that the person they're going after just recently changed their mind on an issue and became a bit more progressive. Language warning: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=434983941023371
Yep, agreed. And I think one has to try hard to resist the easy "noble" self-righteous thinking. I.e. 'well, at least the Dems are trying to help lift up everyone. What do conservatives do besides enable the rich at the expense of their own self interests?'
Consider a libertarian-amped conservative. They (truly) believe that maximum liberty is the primary goal in and of itself. So, it's no surprise that they'd view "collectivist" pro-gov't lefties with disdain. In the best case, considering them well-meaning but naive fools. Now, bring the annoying progressive segment of the left into the mix, with their own illiberal tendencies, and you'll really set that type of conservative off.
To be sure, in my example I'm talking about a principled libertarian-leaning conservative. Someone that really has no use for Trumpism. The point, though, is that it's not simply a monolith on the right standing athwart history yelling stop. While some are simply resisting change, I've encountered plenty of conservatives with other motivating characteristics.
I would argue that the left didn't start obsessing over the right until the late Bush years and then it really took off with Trump. Historically (last 60 years~) the right has been more obsessed with the "enemy within" than most of the left.
I agree. Further, I think it's part of the right's DNA more so than the left.
I suppose the other recent development is that the right has dropped any pretenses of sensibility, so it's difficult not to call out the right. Not to mention that "triggering" and "owning the libs" seem to be the primary centerpieces of the right now. I.e. trying to generate an "outrage" reaction on the left is what the right spends most of its time dwelling on.
I think they're envious of my convenience, but at the same time, disgusted with urban culture? I don't know. It's a weird dichotomy.
Not at athiest, but I am agnostic. Thankfully, religious shame was never on the menu as my family (and the rural area where I'm from) isn't especially religious. The culture is more "Dukes of Hazard" as opposed to "Little House on the Prairie". Yee yee
Through my experience I have learned that people who are not familiar with the world of ideas, new ideas, new ways of speaking, are very put off and fear what they don't understand. They automatically assume that you're talking down to them and you are personally, trying to make them feel stupid. I used to be very careful of the vocabulary that I used around them. Fear of the unknown is incredibly powerful. And obviously it's corrosive.
If you treat someone as if they're your intellectual peer, they may feel put off and that you're talking down to them. If you're careful with your language, they may detect your caution and question your sincerity to the point of thinking you're talking down to them.
Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation from what I'm seeing.
Personally, I don't think any of these answers are entirely correct, so I'll mostly reiterate what I said the other day, which boils down to 'tribalism uber alles.' There's more to it of course, but let's start there.
My belief is that at one point, the GOP was in fact some kind of big tent, or at least contained several different groups who all mostly wanted to go in the same direction. You had your nationalists, you had your racists who were fleeing the democratic party, you had your fiscal conservative types, you had your gung-ho MURICA types, and all of these existed in some kind of harmony because in general, everyone had the same end goal, which was to win.
Culturally speaking, there is always some kind of belief around what is and is not acceptable in 'polite' society. These things move around of course, but they exist, and they were stronger in the past than they are now. Which meant that your white grievance types and nativist types couldn't simply sit on top of the ticket and speak openly, they needed someone like a Reagan or a Bush to carry the torch and protect them from the slings and arrows of their enemies. Which they did.
As a result, two groups formed. You had the voters, who in general aren't particularly well informed no matter what party they vote for, and you had 'Conservatism Inc' which put gloss on the ideas so that voters would go for them. What this meant was dressing up the ideas on top for the people on the bottom. Reagan spoke out against 'welfare queens' despite his cuts to the poor hurting white people just as much. Bush wanted his wars, and it was rural military families that were pushed into the fray by their communities. But you can't sell cutting things people like without making it seem like you're not doing it.
My favorite point on this is that conservative voters overwhelming want to repeal 'obamacare' while also favoring the 'Affordable Care Act' by a wide margin, despite these two things being the same. This is basically how it is for the entirety of the conservative movement writ large.
So there's some truth to that idea that white grievance was behind it all, because voters would accept anything so long as it hurt the right people. But it's also wrong because the voters did in fact believe in things like cutting entitlements... just not for them.
And here is where we get a bit theoretical, but bear with me for a moment. The Conservative view of the world is that everyone is an individual, and any force that exists to push you in a direction is violating your autonomy. Ergo, if the state is trying to make you do something, it's wrong, even if it's good for you. Reagan's idea that 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' boils down to an idea that the government can only hurt you, it can't benefit you.
But that's just a bud of an idea. Consider that most ideas are not used and abused by their creators, but by the generations that came after them. Now let's infuse a little Gingrich and Limbaugh inspired hatred, and some 9/11 inspired xenophobia, and let it percolate for about a decade or so, before throwing in a financial crisis. What do we have?
We have an electorate that has been trained for almost twenty years on the idea that government is bad, mixing with the idea that government only helps 'those' people. Government is against you, the conservative voter. Of course, the elected class picked up on this; that's how you get guys like Ted Cruz claiming to be salt of the earth tea party people. The point is that slowly, the people who got elected were willing to speak a lot more crassly about things like the government, and who it helped.
When things fail, it's usually slowly, then suddenly, and that's how it went with the GOP in terms of falling to Trumpism. See, there's a limit to how far that Rand Paul's of the world are willing to go. Oh, they want to cut government, but not so much that they might lose money. They want to remove waste, and they want to run government like a business, but they'd never actually think of themselves as part of that. Or every just come out and say that those 'other' people are the problem.
Until Trump. Trump said everything out loud. Trump revealed the great lie, which wasn't that voters didn't care about things like shrinking the government, they just wanted it shrunk for other people. They'd happily accept a police state so long as that state attacked the right people. Trump didn't change the nature of the GOP, it simply revealed that the GOP voter had become openly distrustful of the GOP elected class, who no longer resembled them. You can't wean a generation on the idea that government is bad and that everyone is against you, and then just not do anything you said you wanted.
The thing about the Trump years, and now really, is that they've moved many conservative priorities along far more than they ever did before. Want to control immigration? We'll build concentration camps at the border and ban muslims. Want to deal with abortion? Roe V Wade is gone. Guys like DeSantis are showing that yeah, the GOP could have done all the things the voters wanted years ago, they just chose not to.
Now, that's because they're bad ideas. But that's not the point. The point is the voters got fed up of the lie that the GOP elected class was actually doing what they said they wanted to do, and put in people who actually wanted the same things. So far as there has been a 'transformation' it's been that the people who used to be considered 'electable' have all been shown to be the minority in their own party.
Thus, the 'lie' is the one that GOP elected officials told their own voters, who believed in what they said, having been raised on a diet of paranoia and delusions.
Now of course, I could be completely wrong. I must admit that it's entirely possible that it's racism all the way down. It's also possible where it's a cargo cult, where the people in charge are hapless fools who can't decide who or what their party actually believes, and they'll go with whoever wins.
But I think the simpler answer is what JVL said earlier about the id theory of politics; the GOP voters want to feel good and validated about their choices, and they'll vote for whoever makes them feel that. Reagan made them feel good, claiming it was morning in America while turning out the asylums and putting the mentally ill onto our streets. Bush made them feel good about killing terrorists while he tried, and ultimately failed, to privatize social security. Trump scratches that itch for them even more. No more do you need to feel ashamed, he says, 'I am your voice!' and then later 'I am your retribution.'
The lie that GOP office holders told themselves was that they could ride that beast, feed it Glenn Beck's paranoid delusions and Bill O'Reilly's rants against minorities, stomach his belief that 'traditional america didn't exist anymore' when Obama was elected, and not actually do anything that would cost them membership in the polite society they wanted to be a part of. To put it another way, the base wanted blood, it wanted circuses, and the GOP elected kept cheaping out on them.
Part of it is racism, part of it is xenophobia, but I believe that had the party not been so open in accepting the George Wallace voters, that this still would have happened. They'd just have changed who they considered the 'other.' After all, plenty of white people got AIDS, and you didn't see them lifting a finger to help them. They created their monolith, fed it red meat, and then were surprised when their monster ate them too. That's what I think.
I think you've hit several points squarely. But where I'd differ/qualify things...
One of the common problems with these sorts of analyses (from left or right), and, especially lately, is that they tend to imbue malice to the other side. "It's all about the cruelty" is a constant refrain. Or, in your case "...voters would accept anything so long as it hurt the right people..". I suspect this thinking is wrong in terms of the primary motivation. While it does seem (especially lately) to morph into a gratuitous cruelty, I think the primary motivation is a sense of fairness (really entitlement). White grievance comes from a sense of loss, of being left behind. It's not fair
- note well how often Trump uses that language. And so on.
The other driving factor is the *need* for an "other". As many conservative writers themselves will acknowledge, the American right, in particular, needs a common enemy to push back against. The cold war was great for keeping the conservative factions allied. But who can play that role now? Well, it seems it's us.
BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.
But I think you are spot on in terms of resentment of the GOP elites. The sense that those squishy RINOs failed much of the electorate. Also, that so much of America has been drilled in "gov't always bad" thinking for decades. It feeds directly into populist thinking.
Who can play the role of "other" now, in place of the communists? The obvious answer is that communists could still play that role, starting with the heirs of Mao and Stalin, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The only reason that's not happening is because the GOP feels compelled to cover up for Trump's corrupt ties to those and other foreign dictators.
I think this is a prime exhibit for hypothesis 2 - it's all contingent. GOP foreign policy is being driven by Trump's personal corruption, not by any coherent, comprehensive political strategy, theory, or movement. If Trump had owed money to the Saudis rather than the Russians, his foreign policy might have looked more like that of the Bush-Cheney administration.
I half agree. On the one hand, we've seen that motivated reasoning can dominate groups. Even to the point of blatant 180s on subjects.
That said, my guess is that the current GOP flip-flop on Russia isn't simply about covering for Trump's corruption (entanglements in Russia). That could be a factor, but it's more likely emotionally driven by opposition. The Dems are very anti-Russia now, so, therefore, Tucker, et al, kinda like Russia. The entanglements serve to strengthen the knee-jerk opposition. This became obvious with the Mueller investigation. I doubt there's a conservative around that hasn't derisively spouted "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
“BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.”
“Constructive optimistic conservatism” can never get traction if the party is always selling nostalgia for a past that is better than the future could possibly be.
I think this is as close to describing the late 20th c early 21st c GOP as one can come. But it is really really really disturbing to think it infects tens of millions of Americans. I always knew these people existed but I never thought they were more than 10% of the GOP which was less than half the country. The 49-51 split is what perhaps baffles me most.
You're on the right track, and funny we're talking about this during the Fox News v Dominion lawsuit, but I'll add that the democratization of media and campaign fundraising had a lot to do with that 'suddenly'. You could keep those conservatives in check as long as folks like Buckley, Ailes, and Limbaugh could keep telling them the leadership was listening and they understood their concerns. As long as they were the only voices around, well, who else was there to tell them otherwise? And as long as campaigns were financed by the big money guys, maybe you have the odd Pat Buchanan or David Duke sneak into a trace but that was the most damage that could be done.
Then comes the internet, and with it you get Free Republic, then Breitbart and Newsmax, and then social media where any guy with a grievance can be turned into a viral star. Meanwhile, SCOTUS opens the doors on campaign fundraising right as online fundraising is hitting its stride. The party lost its guardrails, and you could see it happening in real-time. Trump was just the culmination of it, a campaign that could effectively wield both social media and online fundraising straight into the White House. Now the old guardrails like Fox News and Limbaugh are having to follow instead of lead, and you get to where we're at today.
Don't take this as a 'sheeple' argument. I'm never a fan of arguing in favor of 'brainwashing' but I do believe in the power of validating beliefs that one would keep out of polite company. And boy howdy are these beliefs being validated all day every day now.
Now, I could be wrong and you could be right that it was only a matter of time, regardless. Maybe they were always going to be fed up after Bush touched the third rail of Social Security and Romney's support of corporatism. I still don't think I'm entirely wrong, though. We're in a whole new era of media consumption and its follow-on effects in politics and culture, and we're still feeling our way through here.
I am a lifelong Democrat, but in the fall of 2015 I assumed that Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee and Hillary the Democratic nominee. I planned to vote for her (and did), but was not particularly bothered at the thought that Bush might win, indeed, I expected that he would. I long for those days, when a certain modicum of intelligence, character and integrity was expected and demonstrated in the Presidential nominees of both parties.
Ditto. I was eager at the thought of America having its first female President, but I would not have felt, had Bush (or even Little Marco!) won, that we had just elected the anti-Christ’s understudy.
Well, he didn’t get very far in the primary in 2016 either. I like to think that he is supporting DeSantis now in an “anything but Trump” mindset. De Santis leading in the polls so people support him. I like to hope that when the primaries get going, another candidate will take the lead, and then the others will get together and unite behind that person. They should have done that in 2016 but did not take Trump seriously enough.
I'll choose #1, since I just quoted Stuart Stevens in a comment on Charlie Sykes piece earlier today. The GOP had nothing appealing to offer most Americans EXCEPT culture and racial grievances. As this reality became clearer and clearer (and I think Obamacare was a key turning point here), Republicans had to go harder and harder on absurd cultural attacks - no restriction gun laws, heavy restrictions on abortion rights, send in the troops to the cities, etc. etc. Now they have turned to the Apocalypse - Democrats are actual demons, Hillary is an actual devil, it's the Last Struggle, and even Putin is better.
Why I might be wrong - JVL, where does Big Business, the big bugaboo of my youthful years, fit in all this? I am used to thinking that Republicans basically represented corporations, and their agenda was mostly to weaken environmental laws and workers' rights. (And yes, I recognize that Democrats were somewhat feeding from the same source). While I don't SEE that any realignment here has taken place, I also don't see big corporations as the kingmakers right now. I don't understand what is going on here.
As an ex-corporate political enabler, I can tell you corps had about 5 seconds of valor post-Jan 6 when they refused to support the 140+ reps who refused to recognize the Biden ballots. In general, corps are intimidated by pols and moreso by the crazies among their employees. A corporate govt relations manager’s worst nightmare is a loose cannon employee cadre spreading rumors about the corp’s political agenda and arguing against the Corp PAC strategy.
The 5 second moment of valor actually lasted about the first quarter of 2022, at which point the hold-out pols had met w/the lobbyists and assured them it was all their constituents’ fault. A POV the lobbyists could appreciate, as they were experiencing some of the same insanity amongst their employees. Everyone involved here just wants a quiet life.
Corporations (stockholders) formerly preferred that business-centric leadership rise to the top. Now we see Elon Musks and Larry Ellisons. The former lean toward stability and predictability (left or right) has been supplanted by power obsessed zealots unafraid of whichever side of history they might be on.
I would like to add a fourth cause of the inevitable endpoint of conservatism. It's not to say those other three are wrong. As you suggest, they are all part of the story. (Though I am most doubtful of the "cargo cult" explanation.)
I would propose that conservatism was always a euphemism for a selfish point of view. It's not so much that the people who vote "conservative" don't like change. What they really like is government that favors their point of view and lines their pockets. It is government for me and not thee. One constant is the GOP offering to lower your taxes.
On the other hand, Democrats believe government is for all citizens. They are still human, of course, so they have a bit of selfishness too but they are generally willing to vote for policies that help their fellow man even if they don't benefit directly and they pay more in taxes. They are also willing to compromise with well-meaning and good-faithed conservatives.
The GOP have gradually learned how to take advantage of this selfishness differential. I'd like to think this started with Reagan but acknowledge that this might just be because I started being aware of politics at that time. Trump's election represents an almost complete removing of any restraints on selfishness. Now it's me, me, me all the time from GOP politicians and voters. Racism comes along for the ride.
So appreciate the analysis, but we should remember Trump of 2015, did not have a sophisticated team and developed strategy to make the run.
As a misogynist, he thought he'd have a chance against a much hated Hillary. He had no idea who the dozen GOP wannabes were, so he figured since he's the smartest person in the world he could handle them.
Trump's intent was to polish his brand for 18 months, since he was off cable.
Then the underbelly of the. GOP emerged...the right-wing victim class came out of the shadows. His first demeaning words about Mexican immigrants was their rallying cry. Trump's ego was pumped up to 11 on the deafening cheers of his co-racist, snowflakes, appreciators of junior high school put down nicknames, and he barnstormed on their fabricated issues. His adrenaline rush was a akin to all authoritarian demi-gods, his head swimming in delusions of grandeur.
The two-thirds normie Repubs saw an opportunity to ride the tiger that is the Victim-In-Chief. They held their collective noses and voted less for Trump and more against Hillary, the scourge of politics.
And Trump won and rode high in his Ego-Parade for the next fours to a loss and now into his attempted come back.
America had lost in so many ways, but perhaps there is a sad lesson.
The curtain was pulled back from the sentiment of too many citizens believing that America is the greatest country off all time. No warts, no issues, no downside for its freedom, opportunity, and economic opportunities.
In reality, we are a country of opportunity for most, but not all; personal wealth in not equitable; service to the country/community is not equitable; and paranoia and fear of outsiders is embedded among a too large contingent of citizens.
I have been reading these comments all day- I am fascinated and cannot look away. I feel like I have a done a crash course in history, philosophy, various social sciences, some religion, and a great deal of political science. My brain hurts. I found myself liking some contradictory comments, and now have to think even harder. I love this place! Thank you all for some very thoughtful, well-written, and brilliant thinking. As always, there were some funny comments as well, and I am always deeply appreciative of things that make me laugh. Again, thanks to JVL and the commenters. Well done, all of you!
In my 80s, grew up with Bombing drills in school (get under the desks!), the Cuban Missile confrontation as I was getting married, Viet Nam, lots of international turmoil.
Then it all disappeared as the USSR imploded, happy times were here! Politically we didn’t know what to do with our new world status, but just flexed our muscles, thought we could introduce democracy and freedom to cultures barely out of the Middle Ages. Iraq 1 & 2 followed, and Afghanistan, millions of dollars, thousands of American lives wasted. The NEOCONS got it wrong, the ancient cultures weren’t ready for the Enlightenment.
So, as I look back, it seems like both parties got many international issues wrong. But the basics of Democracy and Freedom have clearly been on the Liberal Agenda, not the Conservative. My political choices evolved from a comment made to me by my Grandfather, the son of Irish Immigrants who grew up prior to WWl.
I was speaking with him about JFK’s candidacy in ‘59, commenting about some of the articles I had read in the National Review and asked him how he would vote? He looked at me quizzically, then said, “The Republicans have had their feet on the necks of immigrants and their families since I was born, the Irish, Italians, Poles, you name it. Now it’s the Negros they hold down in the South. I’ll never vote Republican, never!”. For a man who was a self-made wealthy businessman who never finished High School it was as strong a political statement as I ever heard him speak.
And it summarized for me how I’ve voted for the most part ever since, for free voting, not suppressed, for equal opportunity undefined by skin color, ethnicity,or gender, and for international peace efforts such as support for the Ukraine, but no mindless efforts to change cultures we don’t understand.
Republicans don’t seem to accept those values, they seem to have become increasingly supportive of anti-American values in my lifetime.
I'm sure all three are in the mix, but I tend to favor the "It was all a lie" argument. I look at the Reagan speech you linked to, but then I remember "Welfare Queens," and I remember him launching his campaign in the town where Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner were murdered. Which was the "real" Reagan? I think probably the man who spoke to the NAACP. I think the old guard really believed in the principles and policies they advanced--but I suspect they didn't trust their own voters to understand, to agree, or to care, any more than modern Republicans do (most of whom seem NOT to believe in those principles anymore, or anything, at all, except gaining and holding power). I think the decades of believing in something complex, but not strongly enough or with enough faith in their own followers to do the hard work of persuasion, has led too many people to take the easy road of grievance-pandering, until there is now nothing left BUT grievance. The people who pandered to grievance because they felt they had to, have now given way to the people who pander to grievance because they love it.
How and why might I be wrong? Because I'm looking in from the outside--because I wasn't raised among Republicans or Conservatives--because while I do my best to make and hold onto friends whose views aren't exactly like mine, there's a difference between a conversation here and there and a deeply embedded community.
The horrible racist who, as a college bball player, brought his Black teammates home to stay with him when they were refused lodging while on the road. This incident has been reported by several RR biographers, who mark it as both typical of RR and odd, given his later behavior as GOP party leader.
Slight correction: Eureka is not in Southern Illinois but is smack dab in the rural IL which is closer to Appalachia than the South. You are correct in how racist it was and is. My mother told me of several instances of KKK ‘funerals’ in towns around IL before I was born.
Really impressed, and somewhat intimidated, by the quality of this conversation. Having lived in Rush Limbaugh’s hometown for some time before I retired, I continue to be curious about his part in this “transformation” of the Republican Party. When we look to social media as a contributing cause, we should also recall that the ‘ditto heads’, who were abundant in Cape Girardeau early in his rise followed him on AM radio. One of Rush’s first pejoratives was “feminazis” and they loved it. In any case, I would recommend reading the text of his 2019 address to CPAC shortly following the election of Obama for further insight into the id of the Republican Party. Most of the current tropes of the Republican Party can be found there, including the profoundly ignorant but often repeated claim by the likes of MTG that the Preamble to the U.S Constitution states that all men are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He was still angry about the War on Poverty because it sought to distribute the wealth of hard working Americans to the undeserving poor. He also sees the future of success or conservatism in better appealing to Walmart Republicans. The speech seethes with resentment/animosity towards liberal intellectuals and what he calls “drive by media.” And he repeatedly attacks any concession to bi-partisanship as a form of weakness. If you’re in the mood to torture yourself, I recommend you read it. Here’s the link: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rushlimbaughcpac2009.htm
I think the link between Trumpism and Rush Limbaugh can simply not be understated. He turned name calling into an a weird artform. He repackaged cruelty as comedy. He invented the concept of in-group lingo that you see rampart in conservative media spaces. I mean, he invented the phrase RINO and we are all still using it! He took a base of voters, and I won't say he radicalized them but he gave them a directives: Vote out the RINO's. Blame the elites and don't trust them. Don't apologize for giving offense.
Now the Republican party is a RINOless cult with an aversion to intellectualism and science, who refuses to walk back any wrong doing (from tasteless jokes to insurrection to sexual assault).
I'm going to start with my Caveat: I was born approximately a week before the USSR began to really unravel. I never lived through any of conservativism's grand success. I grew up with Rocky IV and Red Dawn as cable TV staples. But I've never lived in a world where the US wasn't the global superpower.
Based on my limited life experience, I'm going with "it was all a lie". My childhood was defined my my parent's various failings and incompetence, and as a teen I desperately needed to believe I could pull myself up by my own bootstraps. I liked conservative principles. Work hard and succeed. A foreign policy that made the whole world safer (after all, I didn't want to live in my dumpy town forever!) Balanced budgets! I read Charles Krauthammer's column every Friday. He seemed smart. George Bush seemed to be authentically well-intentioned to me (PEPFAR, No Child Left Behind) and I bought into the Team America let's invade Iraq schtick. John McCain seemed like a good embodiment of teenage Maggie's value system.
In retrospect, I think my parents were motivated by entirely different things. Things weren't going well for them; they wanted people to blame. Rush Limbaugh offered that to my dad, in spades. Blame Dems, blame women, blame immigrants, Let's Go Buchanan, that was my dad. My mom was looking for validation that she had done the right things, and that her problems weren't her fault. I think the "moral majority" stuff really spoke to her. They were both looking for a bail out. McCain ticked their boxes, but he didn't excite them, at all. In 2016, Trump is basically the antithesis of everything I have ever believed in and the embodiment of everything I despise the most in America. He's a hard no for me and meanwhile they're lapping it up. All of it! (I then realize that I actually share no values with the people who raised me, have an existential crises, vote for Gary Johnson, and perm my hair.)
I'm sympathetic to the intellectual merit of the Cargo Cult theory and the demographic change theory (I studied abroad in France while Jean-Marie LePen was handing over the reigns of Le Font National to his daughter.) But for anyone my age, it's a hard sell that the Republican party has any real moral, philosophical, or policy underpinning.
Brillant comment Maggie.
For better or worse, we are all products of how we come of age.....
We humans like to think we are rational, reasoning, logical beings. Many humans never move beyond very simplistic reaction to outward stimuli.
Some may notice the folks born any time after 1980 all come down on the side of, 'it was always bullshit"
If you came up in the 80's and 90's, chances are you find the charlatan nature of the political and religious right completely transparent. And as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thanks so much. +100 to Gryffindor!
Charmed and impressed. Similar story, but earlier.
But... honestly don't understand... Gary Johnson? Or any meaningless vote or non-vote? I never got that disaffected...could be a generational thing I guess.
I was living in one of the least-swingy states in the country at the time (NY) and I did feel that disaffected and 3rd party seemed like a way to make my overall displeasure with candidate quality known to the powers that be. I do think that HRC was a morally compromised candidate (attitude about the email scandal, dismissive of criticism, enabled husband to treat women poorly) and felt like both parties were asking me to tolerate a rotten candidate because the other candidate was worse. Frankly, I thought Gary Johnson was dim, but admired Bill Weld. I do in retrospect view it as a silly decision, akin to perming my hair. Had I lived in say, PA at time I think I would have held my nose and voted for HRC.
I think like a lot of people, I find core concept of libertarianism to be appealing (live and let live!) but it's leading advocates are totally unwilling (unable?) to wrestle with the inherent contradictions. Libertarianism, like "small government conservatism", doesn't seemed particular attuned to the needs of the moment: banks collapsing, trains derailing, Ukraine war, school shootings. I do still admire the commitment to classical liberalism that you in some hardcore Libertarians. The ones that get worked up over extrajudicial police killings and free speech issues and gay rights.
Thanks for the full airing.
"Was MAGA always the inevitable endpoint of conservatism?"
The answer is Yes.
But that requires us to properly understand just what "Conservatism" is. We need to distinguish it from Liberalism - which is the political philosophy of individual rights and limited government which dates back to the Age of Revolutions in the latter 18th century. The Liberal Revolution smashed the Ancien Regime, otherwise known as the Patriarchate, that throne-and-altar conception of society as organized in terms of vested hierarchy and privilege. The cardinal value of this Regime was ANTI-equality. They understood "freedom" in terms of knowing your place and fulfilling your God-given role in society. Liberalism was aimed like a dagger at this worldview and this anthropology.
Conservative values are the values of Patriarchy. The Patriarchate/the Ancien Regime was brought down by Liberalism, but Patriarchal *values* persist. And not for no reason - Patriarchal values were essential to keep civilization going, when zero-sum competition reigned, levels of economic productivity and technological innovation were in the basement, and life was nasty, brutish, and short.
Those values are less practical for us today, but they still have a tight grip on the minds of many. And one of the most enduring aspects of the Patriarchal worldview is the DENIAL of true universal political equality. The Conservative doesn't *really* believe that we're created equal.
Conservatives are not to be confused with Right-liberals, who really are very different from them. Right-liberals value political equality, but they value individual liberty and small government (which is not to be equated with limited government) more. One of the biggest differences is that Conservatives are permanently tempted by the attractions of authoritarian conservative populism (more succinctly referred to as Fascism), while Right-liberals are diametrically opposed to the Fascists.
The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists; their interests are aligned to the extent that they are skeptical of the Left-liberal emphasis on egalitarianism and a robust measure of equality of outcomes.
We are seeing now however how that coalition is exploding, spectacularly - and in a manner which threatens to bring down the Founders' Experiment.
A suggestion to the Bulwark Editors.
I never read the entire set of comments, ever. May be read a dozen top comments and move on.
As of this note, I read all 389. It is the best discourse in my experience. And civil! Compare this to any contemporary political blog.
Consider editing this set and publish as a book. Must read for all right liberals. Though, may be just 1% of the voting public.
At least please remove the paywall for the post and the commentary.
Absolutely agree.
It’s the ultimate modeling for discourse.
Ayo there Logical! How goes it back at the old farm..?
This is very well-stated. I find the distinction between "conservative" and "right liberal" very helpful.
This label-clarifying is apt and quickly explains where we are, in terms of strong undercurrents that are not always readily visible. Unfortunately, the distinction between "conservative" and "right-liberal" is not going to be appreciated and adopted very far beyond these virtual pages.
So: The Burke>Buckley>Reagan tradition is not "conservative", but rather "right-liberal" in nature. Until Trump and with the exception of the brief George Wallace campaign, neither party was "conservative", yet there existed a substantial part of the population that was. The "right-liberals" courted the "conservatives" as a means of achieving power. But the "conservatives" were more numerous, and engaged. Eventually, some pied pipers appeared, in Gingrich, Buchanan, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Trump, and now Carlson, to steer the believers in patriarchy toward seizing influence from the "right-liberals". The latter now hang out at the Bulwark, the Dispatch, and so forth; the former fly their Trump flags high and contemplate the virtues of political terrorism.
In my view, the modern Republican Party has become a partnership for raw power, not an entity based on agreed policy objectives. It is funded at the national and state levels by the oligarch wannabes, aided and abetted at the local level by small-business owners, and reliant upon the everyday fans of patriarchy and rigid social structure (especially in the lower tier) to win elections. Their mutual dependencies provide powerful incentives to stick together.
Good analysis! They also have a propaganda machine, which my be their strongest play. They have a Pravda. They have their Pyongyang Times.
This is *exactly* my point of view on what has happened. (Though I would make the addendum that the Slaver-society of the Old South was Conservative to the core.) Thanks for unpacking it further...!
Wow. Up until I read this, I just assumed Conservatives were being insincere when lobbing "RINO" bombs at anyone and everyone breaking with TFG. Turns out support for the TFG is an efficient means of sorting this coalition into Right-liberals and Conservatives.
There is also a significant cross-term; where Right-liberals are radicalized into "fascist-like" as a result of Sarah's triangle-of-doom and the inability to ever admit you've been had.
Succinct. Crisp. Fantastic.
This is good. This definition of conservative makes it an un-American political theory. It’s strange to think that one time Republicans were radical liberals and Democrats were upholding the ancien regime of slavery. Principles around individual freedom and rights of association allied to a framework for self government that recognized a pre-existing pluralistic nation is such a strange and unusual thing. No wonder it struggles to grow outside the US.
Yes, I would say that Conservatism is un-American; but the thing is, is that Conservatism involves the persistence of a very old (and in earlier historical contexts, very practical) worldview. Perhaps the real conclusion to draw - as you are drawing here - is what a radical break Liberalism represents, from past beliefs about human nature. (I capitalize "Liberalism" to indicate that it compasses both the Right- and the Left-wings of a common Liberal tradition).
The Republican Party WAS the party of Lincoln. Yes, they were progressive. Many Democrats were the party of segregation in the South, in my lifetime...Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace, were all Dixiecrats. I remember all of them. My father voted for George Wallace when he ran for president in 1968. He was popular with young, blue-color men, in the South and Midwest. How things change.
"The curious byways of American politics however have led the Right-liberals to go into political coalition with the Christian conservative populists"
I don't get this. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see why a pro business/socially liberal person would find the Christian Right to their liking. When I think of the Christian Right I see a group who is see paternal and socially conservative.
It seems they would be absolutly the opposite of one another.
"Let Them Eat Tweets" is a great explanation of how this works. https://books.google.com/books/about/Let_Them_Eat_Tweets.html?id=k4iQEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description
The problem is that your pro-business/socially liberal types always thought they could humor the Nat Cons to get their votes, but keep them quiet with red meat to chew on, but they lost control.
One of them wants to be John Wayne and the other one wants Jesus to be John Wayne. It's as simple as that.
I don't see how your thesis aligns with the vast majority of West Virginians voting bright red for Trump. Maybe I missed something.
WV is Christian conservative populist land.
Up until I think 2004, it was blue blue blue because of the solid support for unions. Populist economics. (Manchin being a relic of this era, a Democratic governor before the flip.
It was all a lie, but not the lie Stuart Stevens refers to, i.e. it was always about race. No, what it was about what was satisfying a wealthy donor class that wanted lower taxes and limiting non-security related spending, starting in the 60s and really coming to total domination by the 1990s and the Gingrich era. I say this because what Republicans in the modern era are not flexible on, the non-negotiable policy is lowering taxes, shrinking the non-security parts of government, or other economic policies that favor the very wealthy regardless of whether they benefit others (note, this does not include actually avoiding deficits). Republicans have demonstrated they are in fact flexible on racial issues, on cultural issues, on religious issues, on foreign policy, both rhetorically and substantively. They are quite willing to run up deficits. They are flexible rhetorically a la some tepid forays like TFG's or Rubio's into populist, working class rhetoric, but not substantively on taxes and spending, and that is the big clue as the real driving factor behind their behavior. That is, the one principle they do not violate. The specific path they took to where we are in 2023 is contingent on a number of factors, but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population, and probably in most cases the country as a whole, yet win national majorities.
Reagan was free to denounce racism, while other Republicans were free to cater to white grievance, as their political circumstances dictated. They could be hawkish or isolationist. Social conservative or libertarian, the tent was big enough. What they could not do is raise taxes.
Why is Reagan remembered so much more warmly than George HW Bush? HW actually successfully oversaw the far more difficult process of winning the Cold War by helping manage the actual collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire in a peaceful manner. He won the Iraq War and managed a vast international alliance to do so. His cardinal sin was denouncing supply-side economics as voodoo and supporting a tax hike, resulting in a third-party challenge by a plutocrat who was forced to pay higher taxes, Perot's actual reasons for running being incidental. Even if he was personally sincere, how many other angry plutocrats were whispering in his ear and why?
It was pretty clear by '09 that Republicans didn't actually care much about deficits or shrinking govt. spending as a whole, and it was pretty clear the economic system wasn't doing much for the little guy. Wages were stagnant, increases in GDP were almost all being captured by the wealthiest, and public services and infrastructure were declining, from schools, to roads, to water. It had become ever more clear since the 1980s than supply-side economics didn't work and increased deficits, and Republicans had overseen massive deficit increases without much complaint, up to and including Cheney's comment that Reagan proved deficits don't matter (politically). It was getting harder and harder to argue the economic plans were helping the little guy, but the economic plans couldn't be changed or disavowed. The Iraq War blunders had left foreign policy not exactly a strength, and foreign policy wasn't really an election winner in any case. What to do?
Well, with a black president and changing demographics, racial grievances became a lot more useful in distracting people from the economic reality. They were so emotionally committed to the grievance they would happily swallow alternative facts on everything else. And consider the outrageous, the over-the-top lies and distortions about Obamacare, the death panels. Every other developed country has some form of national health care or or national health insurance plan. Their per capita medical costs are substantially lower than the US with on average better outcomes. If you've got the money, you're free to buy the best care money can buy at home or abroad. It would help many of your constituents. Rectify inefficient and wasteful medical spending. Lower medical costs for the nation as a whole. Why was this the hill to die on?
It broke their one rule.
Even then, post-Romney, the autopsy calling for greater outreach to new groups of voters, not increased focus on racial grievance, because that hadn't worked. And that was fine, just fine. But TFG came out of nowhere and demonstrated that with the right mix of racial and cultural grievance, that was the winning combination. Why, you could even preach a populist economic message, you could denounce business, you could promise to spend on infrastructure, you could even play protectionist. The rubes would, in fact, fall for it. And as a demonstrated winning formula, that's the road they chose. As long as Putin wasn't preaching communism, let him have Ukraine. Why, as long as he doesn't actually practice communism, a reconciliation with Xi and China is in the cards if that's politically expedient. As long as no one breaks the one rule.
Have you actually read Stuart Stevens’ book? If you have, then maybe you need to read it again because racism is really just the first chapter (though there are references elsewhere). When he says “it was *all* a lie - he literally means *all* of it - including the lie about fealty to tax cuts aa a reflection about deeply held values about fiscal responsibility (chapter 3) which cover much of the same ground you do here. He also discusses the “lie” about a deep commitment to “family values” (chapter 2) and the lie about “Patriotism” and defending democracy abroad (chapter 7). It was *all* a lie backs up every claim it makes with overwhelming support (I know because I looked up every footnote and original source I could access). But the most important point is that it wasn’t written by a Democrat but someone who spent his entire career (which is probably longer than JVL has been alive) working for Republicans. If you can’t bring yourself to completely buy in to his opinion, it might be because it’s incredibly disconcerting to come to terms with the fact that the party and the principles and the political heroes you supported for so long were largely an illusion - a “mind palace” built on sand.
It was all a lie. I haven't read Stevens' book, but I agree that the claim of fiscal responsibility was a lie, as well as the other items you cite. But the fealty to tax cuts of the top rates is definitely a thing. Follow the money. The only immutable Republican/Conservative principles are those benefitting the wealthy. Everything else is negotiable based on whether it aids in gaining the power to achieve that goal.
Recognizing that racism was just a strategy rather than a core principle does not minimize the culpability for the extent to which the Conservative movement and the Republican party fanned an appeal to it in order to win elections. It is and was deplorable. It just wasn't largely what the establishment was focused on, other than to win elections. On the other hand, for their voters, sure. That's how the party cultivated them.
Stevens makes the same point about fealty to tax cuts of the top rates as almost the only thing Republicans were unwilling to compromise on. So forgive me for being unclear. He just says that it didn’t really reflect seriousness about fiscal responsibility because you can’t have massive tax cuts while also increasing spending by something like 186%. People think of Reagan as some great fiscal conservative but he ranks among the top 4 or 5 Presidents who were responsible for ballooning the federal deficit. In fact, he started that ball rolling! And unlike FDR who was fighting a massive Depression and a World War or Obama who had inherited the worst economic crisis of the time as well as two ongoing wars, Reagan’s main issue was a Cold War. And we can argue whether or not that merited the huge increase in military spending but it has been a feature to increase it ever since - whether in peace time or in war.
The only Republican President after that who was serious about fiscal policy and called Reagan’s trickle down economics “voodoo economics” was George HW Bush who was correct as history would bear out. His biggest sin was compromising with Democrats so he could cut spending by increasing taxes. And he was destroyed for it - by both the right and the left!
Even though because of what he had accomplished, Clinton was able to leave the White House with a budget surplus instead of a deficit! And instead of being praised for that by Republicans who claimed to care about fiscal responsibility, he was constantly maligned by Newt Gingrich for silly things like increasing spending for food stamps by something like an extra $2000/year.
This may sound like I support progressive policies like massive government spending and drenching the rich in taxes which I don’t! I believe in trying to balance budgets and bring down our federal debt to a number my brain has the capacity to conceive. After reading Stevens’ book (which is fantastic and you really should read!) I no longer believe that most Republicans leaders and voters - especially after Reagan ever sincerely believed in actual fiscal responsibility.
They love to raise a hue and cry about entitlement reform or repealing Obamacare or bailing out banks or Covid stimulus checks or student debt relief (much of which they’re justified on) but have they ever proposed a serious plan to curb spending on these of these issues?!?! Even when they controlled the WH and both houses of congress? No! Because these things are not popular with the base.
The only cards they play are cutting taxes while increasing spending, rolling back regulations and petty fights about the debt ceiling.
Then predictably they blame Democrats for being “fiscally irresponsible”, not doing enough to prevent pandemics and train disasters and bank collapses which were are systems that probably should be regulated based on the domino effect their failures cause. And somehow convincing voters that raising the debt ceiling is a “responsible” thing to do instead a fancy term for defaulting on loans, decreasing our credit rating and throwing the markets in to a mass panic.
Sincere belief in fiscal responsibility? Yeah - it was all a lie.
You tell us, "recognizing that racism was just a strategy rather than a core principle"
If racism is a strategy, then that 'strategizer' is devoid of principle.
This leaves us with racism as the defining feature.
For sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
I had read the book when it first came out but forgot that it had covered more than race. Thanks for the helpful review.
I have not read his book and was basing my characterization of it purely on JVL's remarks.
Makes sense. But I highly recommend it! I’ll admit learning about some of the behind the scenes details came as a bit of a shock (which is why I felt compelled to check the references) but it’s always helpful to understand the roots of a problem if you’re serious about trying to solve it.
My only quibble (if you can call it that) is that the last chapter is entitled “How Lies End” and while it does give a shout out to people like Mona Charen and Bill Kristol, it’s mostly an expression of despair for what the Republican Party has become and doesn’t offer many concrete solutions about changing it. So just up to places like the Bulwark I guess and the people who support them. I pray to God there are enough of us.
Standing ovation!
I also never understood while GHW Bush didn't get more credit as a president, and I totally buy your "he broke the rule" logic. Reagan told them to tear down the wall, Bush made sure they actually did it!
You nailed it. I wish I could have expressed it as well as you did.
You tell us, "but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population."
Good point, but we know how they sell this to the base; white grievance.
Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance.
When we follow the links in your analysis, it actually supports Stevens' thesis.
"Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance."
Exactly. That is *why* the party of Lincoln traded voters with the party of the Confederacy. To gain the seats of power in order to feed the rich and bleed the poor, as you said.
White Grievance robs the bank, but Rich and Corporate is the mastermind.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this statement.
It might have been too obscure even for my obscure mind! I was agreeing with you: The rich and corporate use white-grievance politics to rob us.
Point well taken.
Much obliged, David, have a good day.
This analysis completely forget the actual organizing of the GOP from 1968 til now.
If white grievance was not a core organizing principle from Goldwater on, there would have never been a Willie Horton ad.
And while I despise the Koch family, I can't blame them for the Willie Horton ad, or the slimy pragmatism of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
As a second generation Mexican-American who grew up in Los Angeles in the 90s, my choice is, and always will be, “it was all a lie.”
I’m a moderate D, and I will never even consider voting R because as I was becoming politically aware, my view of the Republican Party was Gov. Wilson and prop 187 here in CA. I’m sure the other elements played a part in all this, but I’ve always been sensitive to the overt racism spewed by the party.
It’s easy to overlook when your appearance codes WASP, but it’s super obvious if you don’t.
I didn't see this until 2016. I knew the racism was there but I thought it was a bug, not a feature.
I was a blue-collar white girl, intent on pulling my self up by my own boots straps, all about the hustle, doing odd jobs under the table for cash, gig work. All through high school, all through college, into medical school. It should be no surprise, many of my coworkers where first generation immigrants (or their kids) or Black. I went to a HBCU for summer classes, and met a lot of kids who were dealing with the same challenges (plus some big extra ones) as me. Work/school combo. How to get places without a car. Where to sleep over the summer. How to minimize student loan debt.
I was a Republican voter based on my values (hard work! Succeed!) and then in 2016, it became obvious to me that the Republican party had turned on the people actually living conservative values. I identified more with my Mexican co-workers and Black classmates more than I ever could with the likes of Trump, I was utterly disgusted and bewildered because this vehemently racist talk was coming from my family. And they were hating on the people who lived life the same way I did and it absolutely crushed me, and I've never gotten over it.
Having lived in a working class immigrant community for the last 30 years, their traditional views are more inline with many Republican traditional views, They are socially conservative, family oriented, entrepreneurial, hard working. They should be a natural fit except of course for the racism. When the Bush family moved away from anti immigrant rhetoric the Republicans got a larger share of the Hispanic vote.
Yup, you hit the nail on the head.
BTW, the same can be said about the African American community. On the political spectrum they are just as diverse as the rest of the nation but the they vote solid Democrat because of racism.
Another thought, as moderate and conservative whites move to the Republican party, African Americans are the moderating force within the Democratic party. They are the reason we have candidate Biden rather than candidate Sanders.
I live in Montgomery County MD, the deep blue heart of Maryland, allegedly. Except that we and Prince George’s county next door are also home to Latino and West African immigrant communities. All of whom are socially conservative, entrepreneurial, religious and family-oriented...stop me if you’ve heard this before. If we ever get immigration sorted out, look for these groups to be leading Maryland’s political realignment.
My first vote as an 18 year old was for Pete Wilson, and I regretted it almost immediately, and never looked back.
i only have a moment, so let me just say that your discussion of point #1 is why so many of us think that you are the best working political analyst in america today.
^^ This. I always learn something from JVL.
My view: I believe it is a combination of all three, with #2 being the driving factor. There is no question in my mind that the racists and neo-fascists have long been a part of the Republican party, but I believe they were relegated more towards the fringe of the party (in the same way that anarchists and other fellow travelers have been on the fringe of the left). In a two party system, most people are going to associate with one of the two parties, even if neither party is a perfect fit, and there is no effective way (in my opinion) to exclude these undesirables from your party. You can only hope to keep them sidelined. Over the past twenty years, though, our society has become more and more tribal, so that it really does not matter what your party does or stands for anymore, because they're your tribe. The other party is and always will be the enemy (i.e., I have friends in both parties who would rather eat nails than admit Presidents Bush or Obama, respectively, did anything right). If the illiberal left were to take over the Democratic Party, would we be conducting this same analysis for them? I suspect so. Sometimes, it feels like we are heading towards the same place Europe was in the 30's, where your choice was either Hitler's fascism or Stalin's communism. But this may just be my anxiety talking. My hope is that if the nutcases currently ruling the Republican roost continue to lose at the polls, the voters will push them out in favor of the traditional conservatives that can win elections (this is where the cargo cult option comes into play).
Why I may be wrong: It's possible that the Republican party has always been a lie, and I just do not want to confront that truth. I grew up in a Democratic household (my dad and brother are both rabid supporters of labor unions), but I decided that the Republican party was the party for me when I was in college (for reference, this would have been in 1998). While I believed in the stated ideals of the Republican Party (i.e. meritocracy and individual freedoms), frankly it was mainly because I believed that the Republican Party was the more realistic and common sense party. That is clearly no longer the case, though, if it ever was.
That's a good and logical summary of the two-party system of today. I do have to say that the extreme liberal-to-the-point-of-being -illiberal faction of the Democratic party is microscopic, whereas the extremist right-wingers seem to presently run the Republican party, and many of them literally seem to be insane.
Great response!
I reckon the first explanation has the majority of the explanation, however I (or it) could be incorrect or missing a key element that's related to white grievance, but also different. That aspect is something I'll call "general resentment" (for which white grievance falls under).
I'm from small town, rural Iowa. I got out, got an education, and now live in the Des Moines metro. There are a lot of people within my own family back there who will say they're happy for me, but in reality, they resent (and even kind of hate) me. They know damn well I had their exact same political sentiments once upon a time, but those sentiments changed once I got an education, saw other parts of the country, and ultimately settled down away from them. Living a life that's different and more convenient than there's is seen as an act of betrayal and goddammit, that's unacceptable. So you bet your ass they're going to vote for the guy/party that promises to stick it to those educated comfortable assholes. We're the REAL Americans, not those "pussified" city dwellers with their Starbucks and Priuses.
I think Tom Nichols said it a week or two ago that there is this idea on the right that the left constantly obsesses about them and how they live their lives when the reality is that the majority of the people in question don’t think about them at all. If we could actually go back to that, we *might* have a shot at making it through this current crisis.
Heh, and yet here we are analyzing what's gone wrong with the right in this country. :-)
Where we're at with tribalism has resulted in lots of (usually simplistic, often ridiculous) assessment of the other side. And, interestingly, very little analysis about what one's own side ought to be doing to help the country. (Yes, I do believe the right is worse in both categories, but the left is game for the chase.)
I guess we can “both sides” this, but that’s not really the point of the exercise. And it certainly isn’t what the newsletter is about.
No doubt it's a tangent. But, that happens often in the comments here.
However, I'd argue it's somewhat relevant. The obsession about the other side may be the primary driving force in current politics, especially on the right. While we often see potentially constructive policy proposals from Biden, et al, what do we see on offer from the GOP? Tax cuts? Border walls? Book banning?
Further, while this sort of thing is a tangent for the current piece, I'd argue it's right in the wheelhouse for the newsletter, generally.
It is the driving force. But I think for two very different reasons. When we look at the animating forces on the left for grievance it revolves around equal rights (mostly) for marginalized communities to live as themselves. On the right, the grievances seem to revolve around the world changing too quickly. This isn’t to make the left seem noble, I’m just looking at the issues that drive the respective bases to anger.
"On the right, the grievances seem to revolve around the world changing too quickly."
And you know, that is sometimes a valid grievance. It is very well established within human nature that some people are just naturally resistant to change. The cultural left often doesn't help this either in that they can often jump on the first shiny new object without thinking it through (e.g. Latinx, Defund the Police, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, etc.) and then automatically shame those who are like, "no that's stupid". It's a Facebook video, but Jim Jeffries did a bit on about how the youth are quick to jump on (albeit accurate) accusations of bigotry, without realizing that the person they're going after just recently changed their mind on an issue and became a bit more progressive. Language warning: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=434983941023371
Yep, agreed. And I think one has to try hard to resist the easy "noble" self-righteous thinking. I.e. 'well, at least the Dems are trying to help lift up everyone. What do conservatives do besides enable the rich at the expense of their own self interests?'
Consider a libertarian-amped conservative. They (truly) believe that maximum liberty is the primary goal in and of itself. So, it's no surprise that they'd view "collectivist" pro-gov't lefties with disdain. In the best case, considering them well-meaning but naive fools. Now, bring the annoying progressive segment of the left into the mix, with their own illiberal tendencies, and you'll really set that type of conservative off.
To be sure, in my example I'm talking about a principled libertarian-leaning conservative. Someone that really has no use for Trumpism. The point, though, is that it's not simply a monolith on the right standing athwart history yelling stop. While some are simply resisting change, I've encountered plenty of conservatives with other motivating characteristics.
I would argue that the left didn't start obsessing over the right until the late Bush years and then it really took off with Trump. Historically (last 60 years~) the right has been more obsessed with the "enemy within" than most of the left.
I agree. Further, I think it's part of the right's DNA more so than the left.
I suppose the other recent development is that the right has dropped any pretenses of sensibility, so it's difficult not to call out the right. Not to mention that "triggering" and "owning the libs" seem to be the primary centerpieces of the right now. I.e. trying to generate an "outrage" reaction on the left is what the right spends most of its time dwelling on.
Culture envy? Btw, did you get told that education turns you into an atheist? "You'll just end up hating Jesus!"
I think they're envious of my convenience, but at the same time, disgusted with urban culture? I don't know. It's a weird dichotomy.
Not at athiest, but I am agnostic. Thankfully, religious shame was never on the menu as my family (and the rural area where I'm from) isn't especially religious. The culture is more "Dukes of Hazard" as opposed to "Little House on the Prairie". Yee yee
Through my experience I have learned that people who are not familiar with the world of ideas, new ideas, new ways of speaking, are very put off and fear what they don't understand. They automatically assume that you're talking down to them and you are personally, trying to make them feel stupid. I used to be very careful of the vocabulary that I used around them. Fear of the unknown is incredibly powerful. And obviously it's corrosive.
If you treat someone as if they're your intellectual peer, they may feel put off and that you're talking down to them. If you're careful with your language, they may detect your caution and question your sincerity to the point of thinking you're talking down to them.
Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation from what I'm seeing.
Personally, I don't think any of these answers are entirely correct, so I'll mostly reiterate what I said the other day, which boils down to 'tribalism uber alles.' There's more to it of course, but let's start there.
My belief is that at one point, the GOP was in fact some kind of big tent, or at least contained several different groups who all mostly wanted to go in the same direction. You had your nationalists, you had your racists who were fleeing the democratic party, you had your fiscal conservative types, you had your gung-ho MURICA types, and all of these existed in some kind of harmony because in general, everyone had the same end goal, which was to win.
Culturally speaking, there is always some kind of belief around what is and is not acceptable in 'polite' society. These things move around of course, but they exist, and they were stronger in the past than they are now. Which meant that your white grievance types and nativist types couldn't simply sit on top of the ticket and speak openly, they needed someone like a Reagan or a Bush to carry the torch and protect them from the slings and arrows of their enemies. Which they did.
As a result, two groups formed. You had the voters, who in general aren't particularly well informed no matter what party they vote for, and you had 'Conservatism Inc' which put gloss on the ideas so that voters would go for them. What this meant was dressing up the ideas on top for the people on the bottom. Reagan spoke out against 'welfare queens' despite his cuts to the poor hurting white people just as much. Bush wanted his wars, and it was rural military families that were pushed into the fray by their communities. But you can't sell cutting things people like without making it seem like you're not doing it.
My favorite point on this is that conservative voters overwhelming want to repeal 'obamacare' while also favoring the 'Affordable Care Act' by a wide margin, despite these two things being the same. This is basically how it is for the entirety of the conservative movement writ large.
So there's some truth to that idea that white grievance was behind it all, because voters would accept anything so long as it hurt the right people. But it's also wrong because the voters did in fact believe in things like cutting entitlements... just not for them.
And here is where we get a bit theoretical, but bear with me for a moment. The Conservative view of the world is that everyone is an individual, and any force that exists to push you in a direction is violating your autonomy. Ergo, if the state is trying to make you do something, it's wrong, even if it's good for you. Reagan's idea that 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' boils down to an idea that the government can only hurt you, it can't benefit you.
But that's just a bud of an idea. Consider that most ideas are not used and abused by their creators, but by the generations that came after them. Now let's infuse a little Gingrich and Limbaugh inspired hatred, and some 9/11 inspired xenophobia, and let it percolate for about a decade or so, before throwing in a financial crisis. What do we have?
We have an electorate that has been trained for almost twenty years on the idea that government is bad, mixing with the idea that government only helps 'those' people. Government is against you, the conservative voter. Of course, the elected class picked up on this; that's how you get guys like Ted Cruz claiming to be salt of the earth tea party people. The point is that slowly, the people who got elected were willing to speak a lot more crassly about things like the government, and who it helped.
When things fail, it's usually slowly, then suddenly, and that's how it went with the GOP in terms of falling to Trumpism. See, there's a limit to how far that Rand Paul's of the world are willing to go. Oh, they want to cut government, but not so much that they might lose money. They want to remove waste, and they want to run government like a business, but they'd never actually think of themselves as part of that. Or every just come out and say that those 'other' people are the problem.
Until Trump. Trump said everything out loud. Trump revealed the great lie, which wasn't that voters didn't care about things like shrinking the government, they just wanted it shrunk for other people. They'd happily accept a police state so long as that state attacked the right people. Trump didn't change the nature of the GOP, it simply revealed that the GOP voter had become openly distrustful of the GOP elected class, who no longer resembled them. You can't wean a generation on the idea that government is bad and that everyone is against you, and then just not do anything you said you wanted.
The thing about the Trump years, and now really, is that they've moved many conservative priorities along far more than they ever did before. Want to control immigration? We'll build concentration camps at the border and ban muslims. Want to deal with abortion? Roe V Wade is gone. Guys like DeSantis are showing that yeah, the GOP could have done all the things the voters wanted years ago, they just chose not to.
Now, that's because they're bad ideas. But that's not the point. The point is the voters got fed up of the lie that the GOP elected class was actually doing what they said they wanted to do, and put in people who actually wanted the same things. So far as there has been a 'transformation' it's been that the people who used to be considered 'electable' have all been shown to be the minority in their own party.
Thus, the 'lie' is the one that GOP elected officials told their own voters, who believed in what they said, having been raised on a diet of paranoia and delusions.
Now of course, I could be completely wrong. I must admit that it's entirely possible that it's racism all the way down. It's also possible where it's a cargo cult, where the people in charge are hapless fools who can't decide who or what their party actually believes, and they'll go with whoever wins.
But I think the simpler answer is what JVL said earlier about the id theory of politics; the GOP voters want to feel good and validated about their choices, and they'll vote for whoever makes them feel that. Reagan made them feel good, claiming it was morning in America while turning out the asylums and putting the mentally ill onto our streets. Bush made them feel good about killing terrorists while he tried, and ultimately failed, to privatize social security. Trump scratches that itch for them even more. No more do you need to feel ashamed, he says, 'I am your voice!' and then later 'I am your retribution.'
The lie that GOP office holders told themselves was that they could ride that beast, feed it Glenn Beck's paranoid delusions and Bill O'Reilly's rants against minorities, stomach his belief that 'traditional america didn't exist anymore' when Obama was elected, and not actually do anything that would cost them membership in the polite society they wanted to be a part of. To put it another way, the base wanted blood, it wanted circuses, and the GOP elected kept cheaping out on them.
Part of it is racism, part of it is xenophobia, but I believe that had the party not been so open in accepting the George Wallace voters, that this still would have happened. They'd just have changed who they considered the 'other.' After all, plenty of white people got AIDS, and you didn't see them lifting a finger to help them. They created their monolith, fed it red meat, and then were surprised when their monster ate them too. That's what I think.
I think you've hit several points squarely. But where I'd differ/qualify things...
One of the common problems with these sorts of analyses (from left or right), and, especially lately, is that they tend to imbue malice to the other side. "It's all about the cruelty" is a constant refrain. Or, in your case "...voters would accept anything so long as it hurt the right people..". I suspect this thinking is wrong in terms of the primary motivation. While it does seem (especially lately) to morph into a gratuitous cruelty, I think the primary motivation is a sense of fairness (really entitlement). White grievance comes from a sense of loss, of being left behind. It's not fair
- note well how often Trump uses that language. And so on.
The other driving factor is the *need* for an "other". As many conservative writers themselves will acknowledge, the American right, in particular, needs a common enemy to push back against. The cold war was great for keeping the conservative factions allied. But who can play that role now? Well, it seems it's us.
BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.
But I think you are spot on in terms of resentment of the GOP elites. The sense that those squishy RINOs failed much of the electorate. Also, that so much of America has been drilled in "gov't always bad" thinking for decades. It feeds directly into populist thinking.
Who can play the role of "other" now, in place of the communists? The obvious answer is that communists could still play that role, starting with the heirs of Mao and Stalin, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The only reason that's not happening is because the GOP feels compelled to cover up for Trump's corrupt ties to those and other foreign dictators.
I think this is a prime exhibit for hypothesis 2 - it's all contingent. GOP foreign policy is being driven by Trump's personal corruption, not by any coherent, comprehensive political strategy, theory, or movement. If Trump had owed money to the Saudis rather than the Russians, his foreign policy might have looked more like that of the Bush-Cheney administration.
I half agree. On the one hand, we've seen that motivated reasoning can dominate groups. Even to the point of blatant 180s on subjects.
That said, my guess is that the current GOP flip-flop on Russia isn't simply about covering for Trump's corruption (entanglements in Russia). That could be a factor, but it's more likely emotionally driven by opposition. The Dems are very anti-Russia now, so, therefore, Tucker, et al, kinda like Russia. The entanglements serve to strengthen the knee-jerk opposition. This became obvious with the Mueller investigation. I doubt there's a conservative around that hasn't derisively spouted "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
“BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.”
“Constructive optimistic conservatism” can never get traction if the party is always selling nostalgia for a past that is better than the future could possibly be.
I think this is as close to describing the late 20th c early 21st c GOP as one can come. But it is really really really disturbing to think it infects tens of millions of Americans. I always knew these people existed but I never thought they were more than 10% of the GOP which was less than half the country. The 49-51 split is what perhaps baffles me most.
You're on the right track, and funny we're talking about this during the Fox News v Dominion lawsuit, but I'll add that the democratization of media and campaign fundraising had a lot to do with that 'suddenly'. You could keep those conservatives in check as long as folks like Buckley, Ailes, and Limbaugh could keep telling them the leadership was listening and they understood their concerns. As long as they were the only voices around, well, who else was there to tell them otherwise? And as long as campaigns were financed by the big money guys, maybe you have the odd Pat Buchanan or David Duke sneak into a trace but that was the most damage that could be done.
Then comes the internet, and with it you get Free Republic, then Breitbart and Newsmax, and then social media where any guy with a grievance can be turned into a viral star. Meanwhile, SCOTUS opens the doors on campaign fundraising right as online fundraising is hitting its stride. The party lost its guardrails, and you could see it happening in real-time. Trump was just the culmination of it, a campaign that could effectively wield both social media and online fundraising straight into the White House. Now the old guardrails like Fox News and Limbaugh are having to follow instead of lead, and you get to where we're at today.
Don't take this as a 'sheeple' argument. I'm never a fan of arguing in favor of 'brainwashing' but I do believe in the power of validating beliefs that one would keep out of polite company. And boy howdy are these beliefs being validated all day every day now.
Now, I could be wrong and you could be right that it was only a matter of time, regardless. Maybe they were always going to be fed up after Bush touched the third rail of Social Security and Romney's support of corporatism. I still don't think I'm entirely wrong, though. We're in a whole new era of media consumption and its follow-on effects in politics and culture, and we're still feeling our way through here.
I am a lifelong Democrat, but in the fall of 2015 I assumed that Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee and Hillary the Democratic nominee. I planned to vote for her (and did), but was not particularly bothered at the thought that Bush might win, indeed, I expected that he would. I long for those days, when a certain modicum of intelligence, character and integrity was expected and demonstrated in the Presidential nominees of both parties.
Ditto. I was eager at the thought of America having its first female President, but I would not have felt, had Bush (or even Little Marco!) won, that we had just elected the anti-Christ’s understudy.
AMEN!
Yet Jeb now endorses Ron DeSantis wholeheartedly. What does that actually say about the soul of "Jeb!" (Exclamation point intended)
Well, he didn’t get very far in the primary in 2016 either. I like to think that he is supporting DeSantis now in an “anything but Trump” mindset. De Santis leading in the polls so people support him. I like to hope that when the primaries get going, another candidate will take the lead, and then the others will get together and unite behind that person. They should have done that in 2016 but did not take Trump seriously enough.
I'll choose #1, since I just quoted Stuart Stevens in a comment on Charlie Sykes piece earlier today. The GOP had nothing appealing to offer most Americans EXCEPT culture and racial grievances. As this reality became clearer and clearer (and I think Obamacare was a key turning point here), Republicans had to go harder and harder on absurd cultural attacks - no restriction gun laws, heavy restrictions on abortion rights, send in the troops to the cities, etc. etc. Now they have turned to the Apocalypse - Democrats are actual demons, Hillary is an actual devil, it's the Last Struggle, and even Putin is better.
Why I might be wrong - JVL, where does Big Business, the big bugaboo of my youthful years, fit in all this? I am used to thinking that Republicans basically represented corporations, and their agenda was mostly to weaken environmental laws and workers' rights. (And yes, I recognize that Democrats were somewhat feeding from the same source). While I don't SEE that any realignment here has taken place, I also don't see big corporations as the kingmakers right now. I don't understand what is going on here.
As an ex-corporate political enabler, I can tell you corps had about 5 seconds of valor post-Jan 6 when they refused to support the 140+ reps who refused to recognize the Biden ballots. In general, corps are intimidated by pols and moreso by the crazies among their employees. A corporate govt relations manager’s worst nightmare is a loose cannon employee cadre spreading rumors about the corp’s political agenda and arguing against the Corp PAC strategy.
The 5 second moment of valor actually lasted about the first quarter of 2022, at which point the hold-out pols had met w/the lobbyists and assured them it was all their constituents’ fault. A POV the lobbyists could appreciate, as they were experiencing some of the same insanity amongst their employees. Everyone involved here just wants a quiet life.
Corporations (stockholders) formerly preferred that business-centric leadership rise to the top. Now we see Elon Musks and Larry Ellisons. The former lean toward stability and predictability (left or right) has been supplanted by power obsessed zealots unafraid of whichever side of history they might be on.
I would like to add a fourth cause of the inevitable endpoint of conservatism. It's not to say those other three are wrong. As you suggest, they are all part of the story. (Though I am most doubtful of the "cargo cult" explanation.)
I would propose that conservatism was always a euphemism for a selfish point of view. It's not so much that the people who vote "conservative" don't like change. What they really like is government that favors their point of view and lines their pockets. It is government for me and not thee. One constant is the GOP offering to lower your taxes.
On the other hand, Democrats believe government is for all citizens. They are still human, of course, so they have a bit of selfishness too but they are generally willing to vote for policies that help their fellow man even if they don't benefit directly and they pay more in taxes. They are also willing to compromise with well-meaning and good-faithed conservatives.
The GOP have gradually learned how to take advantage of this selfishness differential. I'd like to think this started with Reagan but acknowledge that this might just be because I started being aware of politics at that time. Trump's election represents an almost complete removing of any restraints on selfishness. Now it's me, me, me all the time from GOP politicians and voters. Racism comes along for the ride.
JVL,
So appreciate the analysis, but we should remember Trump of 2015, did not have a sophisticated team and developed strategy to make the run.
As a misogynist, he thought he'd have a chance against a much hated Hillary. He had no idea who the dozen GOP wannabes were, so he figured since he's the smartest person in the world he could handle them.
Trump's intent was to polish his brand for 18 months, since he was off cable.
Then the underbelly of the. GOP emerged...the right-wing victim class came out of the shadows. His first demeaning words about Mexican immigrants was their rallying cry. Trump's ego was pumped up to 11 on the deafening cheers of his co-racist, snowflakes, appreciators of junior high school put down nicknames, and he barnstormed on their fabricated issues. His adrenaline rush was a akin to all authoritarian demi-gods, his head swimming in delusions of grandeur.
The two-thirds normie Repubs saw an opportunity to ride the tiger that is the Victim-In-Chief. They held their collective noses and voted less for Trump and more against Hillary, the scourge of politics.
And Trump won and rode high in his Ego-Parade for the next fours to a loss and now into his attempted come back.
America had lost in so many ways, but perhaps there is a sad lesson.
The curtain was pulled back from the sentiment of too many citizens believing that America is the greatest country off all time. No warts, no issues, no downside for its freedom, opportunity, and economic opportunities.
In reality, we are a country of opportunity for most, but not all; personal wealth in not equitable; service to the country/community is not equitable; and paranoia and fear of outsiders is embedded among a too large contingent of citizens.
I have been reading these comments all day- I am fascinated and cannot look away. I feel like I have a done a crash course in history, philosophy, various social sciences, some religion, and a great deal of political science. My brain hurts. I found myself liking some contradictory comments, and now have to think even harder. I love this place! Thank you all for some very thoughtful, well-written, and brilliant thinking. As always, there were some funny comments as well, and I am always deeply appreciative of things that make me laugh. Again, thanks to JVL and the commenters. Well done, all of you!
In my 80s, grew up with Bombing drills in school (get under the desks!), the Cuban Missile confrontation as I was getting married, Viet Nam, lots of international turmoil.
Then it all disappeared as the USSR imploded, happy times were here! Politically we didn’t know what to do with our new world status, but just flexed our muscles, thought we could introduce democracy and freedom to cultures barely out of the Middle Ages. Iraq 1 & 2 followed, and Afghanistan, millions of dollars, thousands of American lives wasted. The NEOCONS got it wrong, the ancient cultures weren’t ready for the Enlightenment.
So, as I look back, it seems like both parties got many international issues wrong. But the basics of Democracy and Freedom have clearly been on the Liberal Agenda, not the Conservative. My political choices evolved from a comment made to me by my Grandfather, the son of Irish Immigrants who grew up prior to WWl.
I was speaking with him about JFK’s candidacy in ‘59, commenting about some of the articles I had read in the National Review and asked him how he would vote? He looked at me quizzically, then said, “The Republicans have had their feet on the necks of immigrants and their families since I was born, the Irish, Italians, Poles, you name it. Now it’s the Negros they hold down in the South. I’ll never vote Republican, never!”. For a man who was a self-made wealthy businessman who never finished High School it was as strong a political statement as I ever heard him speak.
And it summarized for me how I’ve voted for the most part ever since, for free voting, not suppressed, for equal opportunity undefined by skin color, ethnicity,or gender, and for international peace efforts such as support for the Ukraine, but no mindless efforts to change cultures we don’t understand.
Republicans don’t seem to accept those values, they seem to have become increasingly supportive of anti-American values in my lifetime.
God Bless America, and keep us a free Democracy!
Love this. Thanks.
I'm sure all three are in the mix, but I tend to favor the "It was all a lie" argument. I look at the Reagan speech you linked to, but then I remember "Welfare Queens," and I remember him launching his campaign in the town where Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner were murdered. Which was the "real" Reagan? I think probably the man who spoke to the NAACP. I think the old guard really believed in the principles and policies they advanced--but I suspect they didn't trust their own voters to understand, to agree, or to care, any more than modern Republicans do (most of whom seem NOT to believe in those principles anymore, or anything, at all, except gaining and holding power). I think the decades of believing in something complex, but not strongly enough or with enough faith in their own followers to do the hard work of persuasion, has led too many people to take the easy road of grievance-pandering, until there is now nothing left BUT grievance. The people who pandered to grievance because they felt they had to, have now given way to the people who pander to grievance because they love it.
How and why might I be wrong? Because I'm looking in from the outside--because I wasn't raised among Republicans or Conservatives--because while I do my best to make and hold onto friends whose views aren't exactly like mine, there's a difference between a conversation here and there and a deeply embedded community.
The horrible racist who, as a college bball player, brought his Black teammates home to stay with him when they were refused lodging while on the road. This incident has been reported by several RR biographers, who mark it as both typical of RR and odd, given his later behavior as GOP party leader.
Reagan was from northern IL
Slight correction: Eureka is not in Southern Illinois but is smack dab in the rural IL which is closer to Appalachia than the South. You are correct in how racist it was and is. My mother told me of several instances of KKK ‘funerals’ in towns around IL before I was born.
Really impressed, and somewhat intimidated, by the quality of this conversation. Having lived in Rush Limbaugh’s hometown for some time before I retired, I continue to be curious about his part in this “transformation” of the Republican Party. When we look to social media as a contributing cause, we should also recall that the ‘ditto heads’, who were abundant in Cape Girardeau early in his rise followed him on AM radio. One of Rush’s first pejoratives was “feminazis” and they loved it. In any case, I would recommend reading the text of his 2019 address to CPAC shortly following the election of Obama for further insight into the id of the Republican Party. Most of the current tropes of the Republican Party can be found there, including the profoundly ignorant but often repeated claim by the likes of MTG that the Preamble to the U.S Constitution states that all men are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He was still angry about the War on Poverty because it sought to distribute the wealth of hard working Americans to the undeserving poor. He also sees the future of success or conservatism in better appealing to Walmart Republicans. The speech seethes with resentment/animosity towards liberal intellectuals and what he calls “drive by media.” And he repeatedly attacks any concession to bi-partisanship as a form of weakness. If you’re in the mood to torture yourself, I recommend you read it. Here’s the link: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rushlimbaughcpac2009.htm
I'm awfully impressed, too. So proud of you guys.
I think the link between Trumpism and Rush Limbaugh can simply not be understated. He turned name calling into an a weird artform. He repackaged cruelty as comedy. He invented the concept of in-group lingo that you see rampart in conservative media spaces. I mean, he invented the phrase RINO and we are all still using it! He took a base of voters, and I won't say he radicalized them but he gave them a directives: Vote out the RINO's. Blame the elites and don't trust them. Don't apologize for giving offense.
Now the Republican party is a RINOless cult with an aversion to intellectualism and science, who refuses to walk back any wrong doing (from tasteless jokes to insurrection to sexual assault).
I really tried, but a couple of paragraphs was all I could stand. Humiliating that there's a bust of this man in the state Capitol.