Why Did Republicans Abandon Conservatism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CFordUNC
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 300
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
CFordUNC

CFordUNC

Inconceivable Member
Messages
4,047
This is not intended as a trolling or baiting question but a sincere and honest attempt to understand why the Republican Party and its voters have completely abandoned conservatism. I'm no longer Republican but would readily describe myself as a proponent of limited-but-effective government, of self-reliance, of self-empowerment, of lower taxes, of strong borders, of rule of law, of constitutional order, and of peace through strength of a powerful, well-armed military. In other words, classical conservatism.

What I want to understand is why today's Republicans have completely turned on someone like Ronald Reagan, someone who, as I was growing up in the 1990's and 2000's was almost deified and hailed by Republicans as unimpeachable in his patriotism and his commitment to true conservatism. Reagan's entire legacy is currently being unceremoniously dismantled and discarded by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republican Party, and I want to understand why.

Republicans love to trot out the line "a country that can't control its borders is no country at all." I happen to agree with it wholeheartedly. But Republicans also used to like to say that we are a nation of law and order, and of respect and adherence to the U.S. Constitution, and it was a pretty universally understood and uncontroversial notion until recently. We aren't even a full month into this presidential term, and we've seen the executive branch do the following while being cheered by Republicans in Congress and in the voting base:

  • Attempt to end constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship.
  • Dismantle departments and agencies created by statute without seeking congressional approval (USAID, CFPB, DOE).
  • Criminalize lawful diversity programs.
  • Attempting the mass firing of civil servants without any legal authority.
  • Stopped agency payments, a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
  • Illegally fired inspectors general.
  • Capped overhead rates on university grants, violating the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act.
  • Accessing of the U.S. Treasury payment system and illegally downloading records.
Why have Republicans abandoned conservatism in favor of wanting to completely decimate literal decades worth of progress, goodwill, and prosperity built by the United States in the post-World War II global order? I don't think it comes down to a matter of simple disagreement over policy preference; it feels way more sinister and way more insidious than that. We had policy preference disagreements under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and yet we didn't try to take a proverbial blowtorch attached to a chainsaw to the entire federal government apparatus, nor did we betray democratic allies to authoritarian tyrants.

Would love to hear different thoughts and perspectives of folks in this community who are much smarter and much more intelligent than I am.
 
When you realize the heart of conservatism is to cling to the control of power, all aspects of what is "conservative" don't matter. Every. Single. Component. of what conservatism is can be changed or rejected then re-accepted and modified again if it means the people who want power get to keep the power in some sort. Democracy, anti-communism, anti-autocracy, freedom, states rights, de-regulation, regulation, big pharma, anti-science no pharma, abortion, eugenics blah blah blah etc... put whatever principal in there you want and call it conservative and the people who were so called for it can turn on it in a dime. American history shows conservatives grasping for each of those things at some point. Whatever the moment calls for that helps lead to maintaining power, will be embraced.

It's how you can have a country supposedly built on freedom fighting a civil war to maintain the right to own people.

I know it was written about Communism, but really the message is universal about the conservation of power. i.e. conservatism.

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
 
You’re not going to like my answer, but this was always the end goal for conservative intellectuals. Based on everything I know about your politics, you’d be considered a liberal anywhere else.

Conservatism was invented following the French Revolution. They want us to go back to a time of hierarchy and domination. A time when people knew their place. The Enlightenment and liberalism need to be killed in order for that to happen, let alone the New Deal.

People like Reagan were just willing fools.

IIRC, you travel a lot for work. If you’re into podcasts, check out Know Your Enemy. It is a podcast about conservative intellectual history. Download a few episodes and listen on the plane if you’re able; I think you’d get a lot out of it.
 
Last edited:
to be fair, I am not saying your conservative identifying past-self wanted these things; it's that the so-called conservative party used things that appealed to your senses to maintain their power. They packaged up what you wanted to hear and called it a movement. When it was no longer effective, they changed what they were selling. The key is you were dedicated to the product, not the manufacturer. True Republicans are all about the manufacturer. The MAGA folks are buying the product at the moment, but they won't be considered when the product has to be changed again. The trolls on this board worship the power, even while supposedly rejecting Trumpism. I'm not sure how much of that bullshit is worth believing as some is being said just for reaction, but make no mistake their tiny penises get hard on two things - people's response to their trolling and the naked power that comes from their worship of the manufacturer.
 
altmin said:
to be fair, I am not saying your conservative identifying past-self wanted these things; it's that the so-called conservative party used things that appealed to your senses to maintain their power. They packaged up what you wanted to hear and called it a movement. When it was no longer effective, they changed what they were selling. The key is you were dedicated to the product, not the manufacturer. True Republicans are all about the manufacturer. The MAGA folks are buying the product at the moment, but they won't be considered when the product has to be changed again. The trolls on this board worship the power, even while supposedly rejecting Trumpism. I'm not sure how much of that bullshit is worth believing as some is being said just for reaction, but make no mistake their tiny penises get hard on two things - people's response to their trolling and the naked power that comes from their worship of the manufacturer.
Click to expand...
That all makes a ton of sense. I think from my perspective what has been the most difficult thing to stomach is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of today's Republican supporters. I know it's a popular refrain to say "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" or some variation of that. I don't think that's entirely true in my case- I definitely left the party because I've become more liberal in my views on several things, but I do think that is it way more true that the Republican Party moved much, much further away from me (and classical conservatism) than I moved away.
 
Paine said:
You’re not going to like my answer, but this was always the end goal for conservative intellectuals. Based on everything I know about your politics, you’d be considered a liberal anywhere else.

Conservatism was invented following the French Revolution. They want us to go back to a time of hierarchy and domination. A time when people knew their place. The Enlightenment and liberalism need to be killed in order for that to happen, let alone the New Deal.

People like Reagan were just willing fools.

IIRC, you travel a lot for work. If you’re into podcasts, check out Know Your Enemy. It is a podcast about conservative intellectual history. Download a few episodes and listen on the plane if you’re able; I think you’d get a lot out of it.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'll definitely check that out! Thanks for the rec. I'm definitely in my "podcast era" right now.

These are really interesting points that I hadn't considered. Admittedly I don't know very much- certainly not enough to speak intelligently- about political ideologies in other countries, but that is fascinating to consider that the brand of classical conservatism to which I feel that I adhere, would be considered liberal in most other places. I also had never really considered that conservatism is about hierarchy and domination, but that is likely my own mis-(or lack of)-understanding of what actual conservatism is. I've always thought of conservatism as it pertains to promotion of individual freedom and liberty, self-determination, self-actualization, etc.
 
CFordUNC said:
Dude, I'll definitely check that out! Thanks for the rec. I'm definitely in my "podcast era" right now.

These are really interesting points that I hadn't considered. Admittedly I don't know very much- certainly not enough to speak intelligently- about political ideologies in other countries, but that is fascinating to consider that the brand of classical conservatism to which I feel that I adhere, would be considered liberal in most other places. I also had never really considered that conservatism is about hierarchy and domination, but that is likely my own mis-(or lack of)-understanding of what actual conservatism is. I've always thought of conservatism as it pertains to promotion of individual freedom and liberty, self-determination, self-actualization, etc.
Click to expand...
Growing up in America distorts political ideology for everyone. As a country, we are liberalism embodied. Even those who sought a return to earlier forms of domination did so by appealing to liberal and Enlightenment messaging, so things get really muddy.

The New Deal further exacerbated this dynamic. Republicans like Eisenhower understood that the New Deal Order was hegemonic, so they needed to appeal to people within this coalition. Reagan was also a New Deal Democrat prior to his anti-labor turn while working for GE.

I think the best way to think about our current time is that conservatives are revealing their true colors. They don’t have to appeal to liberalism anymore because it has been largely discredited since the 1970s. So they are turning back the clock. That’s why Vance converted to Catholicism: hierarchy.
 
CFordUNC said:
This is not intended as a trolling or baiting question but a sincere and honest attempt to understand why the Republican Party and its voters have completely abandoned conservatism. I'm no longer Republican but would readily describe myself as a proponent of limited-but-effective government, of self-reliance, of self-empowerment, of lower taxes, of strong borders, of rule of law, of constitutional order, and of peace through strength of a powerful, well-armed military. In other words, classical conservatism.

What I want to understand is why today's Republicans have completely turned on someone like Ronald Reagan, someone who, as I was growing up in the 1990's and 2000's was almost deified and hailed by Republicans as unimpeachable in his patriotism and his commitment to true conservatism. Reagan's entire legacy is currently being unceremoniously dismantled and discarded by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republican Party, and I want to understand why.

Republicans love to trot out the line "a country that can't control its borders is no country at all." I happen to agree with it wholeheartedly. But Republicans also used to like to say that we are a nation of law and order, and of respect and adherence to the U.S. Constitution, and it was a pretty universally understood and uncontroversial notion until recently. We aren't even a full month into this presidential term, and we've seen the executive branch do the following while being cheered by Republicans in Congress and in the voting base:

  • Attempt to end constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship.
  • Dismantle departments and agencies created by statute without seeking congressional approval (USAID, CFPB, DOE).
  • Criminalize lawful diversity programs.
  • Attempting the mass firing of civil servants without any legal authority.
  • Stopped agency payments, a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
  • Illegally fired inspectors general.
  • Capped overhead rates on university grants, violating the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act.
  • Accessing of the U.S. Treasury payment system and illegally downloading records.
Why have Republicans abandoned conservatism in favor of wanting to completely decimate literal decades worth of progress, goodwill, and prosperity built by the United States in the post-World War II global order? I don't think it comes down to a matter of simple disagreement over policy preference; it feels way more sinister and way more insidious than that. We had policy preference disagreements under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and yet we didn't try to take a proverbial blowtorch attached to a chainsaw to the entire federal government apparatus, nor did we betray democratic allies to authoritarian tyrants.

Would love to hear different thoughts and perspectives of folks in this community who are much smarter and much more intelligent than I am.
Click to expand...
First thing to clarify - Trump isn't a conservative.

Second, I don't think Republicans, as a whole, have given up on conservatism.

I do think, as was the case in the first term, that Congressional Republicans are acquiescing to Trump to a degree that is honestly embarrassing and I think a lot of it has to do with job security. MAGA is a very influential voting bloc and opposing Trump will turn them against you.
 
CFordUNC said:
Dude, I'll definitely check that out! Thanks for the rec. I'm definitely in my "podcast era" right now.

These are really interesting points that I hadn't considered. Admittedly I don't know very much- certainly not enough to speak intelligently- about political ideologies in other countries, but that is fascinating to consider that the brand of classical conservatism to which I feel that I adhere, would be considered liberal in most other places. I also had never really considered that conservatism is about hierarchy and domination, but that is likely my own mis-(or lack of)-understanding of what actual conservatism is. I've always thought of conservatism as it pertains to promotion of individual freedom and liberty, self-determination, self-actualization, etc.
Click to expand...
In fact the very concept of constitutional government itself is a classic liberal principle. Starting with the French Revolution, the signature asks of liberal movements in Europe and across the world was for a constitution. The very act of a constitution that limited and outlined the power of a sovereign (in most places it had been an absolute monarch) was seen as radical and an affront by the original conservatives, who wanted to keep and/or return to government by an absolute monarch who got his power from God, or by force, not from the will of the people.

Of course hundreds of years later no one really advocates to going back to government without a constitution, so the principles have adapted. American conservatives will use the Constitution as a shield to protect their own rights (free speech, bear arms, etc) and also as a sword to deny other rights (abortion, gay marriage, etc). As I wrote in another thread, and has often been observed, they see the constitution as protecting their own rights and limiting the rights of their enemies. Hence why conservatives will spend years prattling about the sanctity of the constitution then discard it the second it threatens to stand in the way of their rights.
 
The Republican Party's ideology has remained relatively constant since the late 1800s: the rich should get richer. The only exception to this rule was Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting. But after T.R., they got back to ... shall we say ... business. There was always a certain gospel of wealth vibe (a new golden rule, perhaps) to the uber-rich, "I'm better than you because I have more money than you."

The Democrats also had their own cross to bear post-Civil War. The southern wing of the party had its own golden rule, "I'm better than you because I'm white." Nixon's Southern strategy made the first serious attempt to merge the elitists and haters. Reagan sealed the deal. Trump is the purest form of Republicanism, a toxic stew of hate of the other (poor people, minorities, women, and additional "others"). But, make no mistake, this is what Republicans ultimately wanted - a world where their adherents could freely practice their religion of "I'm better than you because < fill in the blank >.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
The Republican Party's ideology has remained relatively constant since the late 1800s: the rich should get richer. The only exception to this rule was Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting. But after T.R., they got back to ... shall we say ... business. There was always a certain gospel of wealth vibe (a new golden rule, perhaps) to the uber-rich, "I'm better than you because I have more money than you."

The Democrats also had their own cross to bear post-Civil War. The southern wing of the party had its own golden rule, "I'm better than you because I'm white." Nixon's Southern strategy made the first serious attempt to merge the elitists and haters. Reagan sealed the deal. Trump is the purest form of Republicanism, a toxic stew of hate of the other (poor people, minorities, women, and additional "others"). But, make no mistake, this is what Republicans ultimately wanted - a world where their adherents could freely practice their religion of "I'm better than you because < fill in the blank >.
Click to expand...
No.
No.
No and no.
 
rodoheel said:
I actually think you could argue that the rule has been as much, or more, the inverse: "I have more money than you because I'm better than you."
Click to expand...
The fusing of the “I have more money than you because I’m better than you” types and the “I’m better than you because I have more money than you” types is important to their political power.
 
The Reagan era conservatism gave out of gas in the 2nd term of the Bush Administration. It was a good run with the small government/libertarians/strong national defense/evangelical alliance lasting approximately 30 years (1975-2005). The Press in the early to mid 2000s transitioned from being simply biased towards the Dems to being Democratic activists - opening rooting for the Dems and vocally opposing the Rs. This caused the conservatives to retreat to Fox News and Rush and talk radio. Then, the Great Recession ushered in the Obama "we're all socialists" era.

Obama turned the party hard left, especially in his 2nd term. He was worshiped by the boot licking press. The reaction on the right was the Tea Party - which was a populist movement emphasizing the debt Obama was running up. The two R Presidential candidates of this era - McCain and Romney - simply wouldn't fight back and respond to the activist Press and increasingly leftist Dems - choosing to play by the old rules. The activists gained power in the Dem party and were pushing the boundaries on the cultural front (what we now call "woke").

Then comes the 2016 primary. Most of the candidates were pretty normal conservatives. Early on, I aligned myself with Rubio thinking the country needed some new conservative blood. Plus, he was marginally associated with the Tea Party. Trump comes in like a bull dozer and does his Trump thing. I didn't initially support him because I didn't think there was anyway in Hell he could win a general election. As time went by, many if not most traditional conservatives supported him because "at least he fought back" with the Press and the Dems unlike McCain and Romney. The unrelenting attacks by the left only caused more Rs to line up behind him as "their guy." Trump appealed to blue collar types the way Romney wing of the R party never could.

As everyone notes, Trump is not a conservative. The Rs have essentially leased Trump to disrupt and take on the Dems - who were growing more left and more woke during and after his term. A lot of Trump support from traditional Rs is "I can't stand those nut cases" and Trump's at least taking them on. Plus, Trump does have some conservative views:

Law and order and support for the police.
He's now embracing a smaller leaner government with DOGE - which he didn't support during his first term.
Tough on China.
Pro Life
Strong borders
Supporter of religious institutions
Strong ally of Israel
Anti - woke madness
Equal - not equitable - opportunities for all

Tariffs and foreign policy is where he strongly veers from the Reagan era. But, on these issues, he has a point. Free trade is great but not always - especially when other countries to not reciprocate. Strong national defense is fine until it evolves into Neocon and endless war foreign policy.

All the crazy stuff about Trump conservatives don't always like, but generally accept, is simply part of the package. We don't see Trump as a "threat to democracy" or that we're headed to a dictatorship. After he completes this glorious term, he'll be gone and parts of the MAGA movement will remain but there won't be another Trump. He's a unicorn. No other politician can get away with what he does so they won't try. Some of the hard core MAGA will stop supporting Rs and return to not voting.

In short, I really haven't changed my conservative principles, I'm just willing to allow Trump to do his thing as the Disrupter in Chief since the Dems went so far crazy and his methods often get things done.

Remember, you asked my opinion.
 
rodoheel said:
Brilliant counterpoint. Care to explain why that's wrong?
Click to expand...
There are two approaches to things like wealth and income. Conservatives, to varying degrees, don't want government interference. So, they don't support unions. Some might go as far as not supporting any kind of minimum wage. That is not the same as saying the GOAL of conservatism is "The rich should get richer", even if that is the end result in some situations.

Conservatism also is not toxic hate for minorities, the poor, women, etc. Conservatism is essentially not creating laws or policy favoring people based on the amount of melanin in your skin or not creating laws or policy to address an issue that is non-existent; the misogyny-based wage gap between men and women.

BTW, Republicans do the same crap with their demonization of the INTENT behind liberal policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top