Why Did Republicans Abandon Conservatism?

[finesse]

There are two approaches to things like wealth and income. Conservatives, to varying degrees, don't want government interference. 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.

Then why does the country and everyone but the rich do better financially under Democrats? The rich only do well.

 

[CFordUNC]

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.

Sincerely appreciate your taking the time to share all of that. That is definitely some fascinating insight into your perspective. I don't agree with all of it and I don't disagree with all of it.

I agree with you that Trump is not a conservative and is a disrupter, but whereas it seems that you find him to be a disrupter in a positive sense, I view him as a bull-in-a-China-shop-with-a-blowtorch-attached-to-a-machete-attached-to-a-chainsaw disrupter. I don't think that his style or manner of "disruption" is good for our country, our allies, or our global standing in the world. Even ignoring that Trump is crass and crude- which, even if they are bad characteristics for a person, they aren't necessarily inherently disqualifying characteristics to be POTUS- but even ignoring that, I think that Trump is generally erratic, chaotic, and incompetent. THOSE are characteristics that I see as disqualifying to be POTUS. A POTUS should not be erratic and chaotic.

 

[ZenMode]

Then why does the country and everyone but the rich do better financially under Democrats? The rich only do well.

You should really read my post. If you did, you'd see that my focus is on intent of an outcome, not just outcome.

 

[4thgenheel]

who gives a fuck about the intent if the outcomes always involve the rich getting richer and the poor / minorities being oppressed and impoverished. and the middle class deteriorating. forgot that fun part. everyone gets poorer except for the uber rich.

 

[AlbionAmerican]

An underappreciated tension in American politics is that there is a battle between the political philosophical traditions of Britain vs. the Continental European (primarily German) approaches to conservatism. Your politics above is very much steeped in the more Burke/Hume/Locke approach to conservatism. When it comes to tradition, its viewed as an organic evolutionary process based on precedent, the defense of institutions is paramount. Change therefore is incremental in nature, skeptical of radical change. The purpose of the state is meant to protect the individual, and therefore the desire is to create government that is limited in nature, and there is a fundamental skepticism towards utopian thought.

However, there are more Americans of continental European descent than British descent, in fact German heritage is the 2nd largest ethnic heritage in America, not to mention those of Italian and French. German political philosophy is far deeper and more complex, rooted in Kant/Hegel it views tradition as mythic, part of a historical process towards a collective destiny. Change within the system embraces reactionary or forms of radicalism as a process of national renewal. Political systems end up emerging from abstraction, which is what leads to utopian ways of thinking. It views the state as the end all, be all centralizing force for morality and ethics, to in turn shape its citizen's freedom.

Now combine that with the more Italian/French Catholic-inspired political traditions, not to mention the Russian/Jewish/Eastern European influence to it all, and this will explain to you precisely why you are out of touch with today's Republican party.

 

[ZenMode]

who gives a fuck about the intent if the outcomes always involve the rich getting richer and the poor / minorities being oppressed and impoverished.

Because pretending to be a mind reader, and ascribing intent when you are in no position to do so, contributes to our current political divide.

Was affirmative action in liberal-run Ivy League universities INTENDED to deny some smart, high-scoring Asians the ability to go to those schools? If it is, then Dems are all a bunch of evil, racist SOBs, right?

 

[rodoheel]

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.

Conservativism spent decades (centuries?) opposing the elimination of slavery, civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans, voting rights and equal rights for women, gay rights (including gay marriage), abortion, etc. Do you believe all of those things to have been "non-existent" issues?

As to your first point, it seems like saying "conservatives don't have a goal of making the rich get richer, they just support policies that have the direst result of making the rich get richer" is making a distinction without a difference.

 

[finesse]

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.

A couple of things wrong with your history. Small government Conservatives don't increase the national debt by 280%. They don't make deals with terrorists holding American hostages.

Evangelicals entered the political fray as Carter supporters. However, he cut funding to schools like Liberty and Bob Jones because they refused to integrate. Since Reagan blew the racist dog whistle when he had the campaign event in Philadelphia , Mississippi, Falwell rallied the Moral Majority behind Reagan. It was only after Reagan failed to deliver on that, that the Moral Majority and Protestants in general took on abortion as a terrible sin. Previously, as an example , the Southern Baptist Convention had actually supported Roe vs Wade.

That's a much time as I'm willing to spend on this for now, but the rest seems about as reliable.

 

[4thgenheel]

Because pretending to be a mind reader, and ascribing intent when you are in no position to do so, contributes to our current political divide.

Was affirmative action in liberal-run Ivy League universities INTENDED to deny some smart, high-scoring Asians the ability to go to those schools? If it is, then Dems are all a bunch of evil, racist SOBs, right?

holy hell, what an absolutely absurd analogy.

 

[finesse]

You should really read my post. If you did, you'd see that my focus is on intent of an outcome, not just outcome.

75 years is a long time for none of that intent to do any good, especially when there's a working option.

 

[BillOfRights]

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.

1. Completely agree. trump isn't a conservative.

2. Republicans who haven't given up on conservatism is a really small number. Anyone who voted for trump has given up on conservatism, whether they realize it or not. They may be lying to themselves to some degree.

3. Completely agree. Cowards all.

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

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

I was picking up what you were putting down right up to this point^


I'm sure I'm not the only who thinks that "woke" is some bullshit nonsense that some folks use to describe things they don't like. I'm not trying to insult you. It's just my opinion when it comes to the whole "woke" thing.

 

[breepf]

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.

I'd second the Know Your Enemy recommendation. In particular, the episode with Daniel Denvir--it actually initially appeared on The Dig--is a quite useful long-form parsing of the various factions that compose post-WWII American conservatism.

The political historian/theorist Corey Robin's book The Reactionary Mind is also a very readable take on American conservatism, though I think some of his conclusions are too idiosyncratic.

Quinn Slobodian's books on neoliberalism are quite good: The Globalists and Crack-Up Capitalism. He's got a new book out this April called Hayek's Bastards that looks quite good.

Kim Phillips-Fein's book Invisible Hands covers the longstanding opposition to the New Deal on the part of the American business community, which helps put into perspective what Musk is doing right now.

 

[finesse]

I was picking up what you were putting down right up to this point^


I'm sure I'm not the only who thinks that "woke" is some bullshit nonsense that some folks use to describe things they don't like. I'm not trying to insult you. It's just my opinion when it comes to the whole "woke" thing.

Not only that, it's pretty clear from studies like Pew Foundation that Democrats have stayed in about the same place while Republicans have moved to the right.

 

[BillOfRights]

It's no accident that the country and everyone except the rich have done better financially under Democrats for the last 75 years.

The rich have often done better under Democrats as well. The economy and the stock market do better under Democrats, so the rich who owned the majority of stocks benefit.

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

The rich have often done better under Democrats. As well, the economy and the stock market does better under Democrats. So the rich who owned the majority of stocks benefit.

That may be true, but every night I come home from a hard days work and Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham explain to me how the Dems/woke/liberals/gays/brown people are keeping me from realizing my true socioeconomic potential. I mean they wouldn't lie to me would they? I know in my gut that what they say must be true because it feels so good to hear them say it.

 

[ZenMode]

Conservativism spent decades (centuries?) opposing the elimination of slavery, civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans, voting rights and equal rights for women, gay rights (including gay marriage), abortion, etc. Do you believe all of those things to have been "non-existent" issues?

No. The fact that there are some non-existent issues portrayed as issues doesn't mean there aren't any true issues.

As to your first point, it seems like saying "conservatives don't have a goal of making the rich get richer, they just support policies that have the direst result of making the rich get richer" is making a distinction without a difference.

Right. It's all a matter of degrees, but that doesn't define intent. It's not unreasonable or evil to say, as many Conservatives do, the United States should provide opportunity for success and wealth, but not interfere in whether or not any individual person is successful or wealthy beyond what their natural abilities allow them. In other words, opportunity doesn't guarantee outcome. It's really a dispute over how much interference/involvement each person believes is necessary to ensure or influence an outcome. But, again, that doesn't mean that people who support a much more hands-off approach INTEND or WANT to have people dying in the streets, even if that is the natural outcome.

Also @finesse

 

[4thgenheel]

Conservative and Liberal Brains Might Have Some Real Differences

Scanners try to watch the red-blue divide play out underneath the skull

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[finesse]

No. The fact that there are some non-existent issues portrayed as issues doesn't mean there aren't any true issues.


Right. It's all a matter of degrees, but that doesn't define intent. It's not unreasonable or evil to say, as many Conservatives do, the United States should provide opportunity for success and wealth, but not interfere in whether or not any individual person is successful or wealthy beyond what their natural abilities allow them. In other words, opportunity doesn't guarantee outcome. It's really a dispute over how much interference/involvement each person believes is necessary to ensure or influence an outcome. But, again, that doesn't mean that people who support a much more hands-off approach INTEND or WANT to have people dying in the streets, even if that is the natural outcome.

Also @finesse

Then explain to me why conservatives try to limit opportunities and dictate social behavior that is injurious and limiting to others? That is anything but hands off.

 

[aGDevil2k]

The GOP is now the party of big, intrusive government.