Why Did Republicans Abandon Conservatism?

[superrific]

This is one of the primary things I had in mind when posing my original questions in the OP. I cannot wrap my mind around how the Party of Reagan has become the Party of Putin. That, more so than anything else, stuns me.

I'll give you that one. As you know, I've been predicting something like the rise of MAGA for 20 years. The writing was on the wall during W's term. The Tea Party movement made it inevitable.

But I didn't foresee kowtowing to Russia.

 

[ZenMode]

Now you're arguing against public accommodations laws and anti-discrimination laws. Jim Crow wants its bullshit back.

Nope. I'm not saying government should have no authority over how businesses are run. I am saying that supporting something based on principle isn't the same as supporting or intending to cause negative consequences. I absolutely support gun rights. That doesn't mean I intend for people to be wrongly killed, yet that is precisely how it's often portrayed by Democrats. It's the same as the game Republicans play with abortion and anyone supporting it being a baby killer.

It's the inability to stop demonizing, as you just did with me, as Hillary and Biden certainly seemed to do with Trump voters, that is why our national conversations are breaking down and the political divide is growing.

 

[SnoopRob]

I think the modern Republican Party has taken the path it has largely due to the confluence of 3 main inputs (in no particular order)...

1) Globalization, and the resulting economic & cultural disruption, has harmed the rural and semi-rural areas that the largest part of Republicans tend to live in. A lot of jobs have been lost and, in doing so, a lot of ability for those rural areas to retain people have been lost. Another big part of the issue in these communities is that those left behind simply don't have the same standard of living they had before and they greatly fear losing the standard of living they currently have. A loft of folks are upset that younger folks don't have a great economic future in their small towns and therefore choose to leave to go where greater opportunities are. Additionally, globalization and its effects have brought folks into these rural communities who were not there even 20 years ago, often people of color, which have changed the way these communities see themselves. And so for many in these communities, they are very, very upset about both the economic and cultural changes that globalization has brought to their communities and they have chosen to both lash out at those they believe to be responsible for those changes and to take any steps they can to ensure that the remaining "economic pie" in their area goes to those like them and not folks they see as "others".

2) Demographic change has also been a significant input into the Republican push away from conservatism and toward authoritarian fascism. What Republicans see is a number of demographic changes to our country, all of which either scare them or which don't benefit them politically (or both).

- Urban areas continue to grow in both numbers and power, while rural areas experience "brain drain" and loss of power.
- The country is increasingly becoming one of racial/ethnic diversity. (Although Pubs have made a good run at Hispanic/Latinx folks over the last few years.)
- Women are increasingly taking hold of leadership positions, great and small, and are increasingly free of traditional gender restraints.
- Increasingly, minority groups who used to be content to hide themselves/remain on the margins of society are pushing for equality and a greater place of acknowledgment in and by society.

What Republicans have taken from this that their opportunities to both remain in power and/or use the power they obtain to keep a "traditional" society intact has and is greatly weakening. A pivotal event in this process for Republicans was Obama's election in 2008. Beyond electing on person of color to the presidency, the overwhelming nature of Democratic gains in Congress was a kind of shock to Republicans that let them know that without a major change that the long-term prognosis for their party and their desired America was not good. It lit a fire under a lot of Republicans, both leadership and, more importantly, proto-MAGA party members.

3) Republicans have been radicalized for the last 40-ish years and we're seeing the long-term fruits of those efforts. Republicans have been taught by right-wing media and, increasingly, by actual Republican politicians that Democrats aren't just folks with whom they have disagreements, they are the enemy. That policy differences aren't merely differences in opinions, goals, or perspectives, but that they will lead to the end of our country or society. That there is no way that Republicans can co-exist with non-Republicans because the differences are too great, that the only potential outcomes are either Republicans win and the country is "saved" or that Republicans lose and the country is "lost". And once a significantly large group of folks view the world in this black-or-white, right-vs-wrong manner, then there is no limit to what is not only acceptable but beneficial to ensure that the terrible things promised if "the others" should win does not happen. This is radical extremism no different than that which undergirds terrorism or revolutions. (Of course, the ironic thing is that in becoming such a radical body, Republicans have made themselves into the very type of extremist group that justifies the rhetoric being applied to them that they used against their opponents without actual reason.)

The combination of these 3 factors led Republicans into leaving conservatism behind and morphing into a body largely taken with authoritarian fascism. Their desire to preserve traditional hierarchies, norms, and social orders - when faced with forces that threatened to provide support for different priorities and outcomes - led them to reject full democracy, small government ideas, and even the rule of law for the raw power to attempt to preserve the social order and their place in it.

 

[336Heel]

Simple answer. To own the libs. It's not about any principle(s). It's just about defeating the libs and remaining in power.

 

[rodoheel]

Nope. I'm not saying government should have no authority over how businesses are run. I am saying that supporting something based on principle isn't the same as supporting or intending to cause negative consequences. I absolutely support gun rights. That doesn't mean I intend for people to be wrongly killed, yet that is precisely how it's often portrayed by Democrats. It's the same as the game Republicans play with abortion and anyone supporting it being a baby killer.

It's the inability to stop demonizing, as you just did with me, as Hillary and Biden certainly seemed to do with Trump voters, that is why our national conversations are breaking down and the political divide is growing.

It is not that you intend for people to be wrongly killed; it's that you are willing for people to be wrongly killed as the price for your "freedom"

 

[rodoheel]

But you are still equating a belief that the owner can run his company as being the same as supporting the owner exploiting employees, which I really don't understand because, again, the employer/employee relationship is voluntary on both sides. Nobody is forced to hire you and you aren't forced to work somewhere.

This is just pure sophistry. Saying that the owner should have the right to exploit his employees is functionally the same as saying you support the owner exploiting his employees. The second part of what you posted doesn't change the intent - it is simply a justification for the owner having the right to exploit his employees (that the employees supposedly have a means to avoid the exploitation).

Apply this argument to some actual work-related regulations and see how silly it sounds.

"Just because I oppose child labor laws doesn't mean I support children working in factories."

"Just because I oppose a 40-hour-work week doesn't mean I support employers forcing their employees to work on weekends."

"Just because I oppose regulations requiring fire safety equipment in workplaces doesn't mean I support workers getting injured in fires."

Would you really say any of those things with a straight face? You are working way too hard to try to absolve conservatives of the consequences of what they advocate for. Opposing or advocating the removal of regulations that protect people is no different than saying you don't care what happens to those people. It's hiding behind a legal fiction to avoid admitting you are a selfish asshole.

 

[superrific]

Nope. I'm not saying government should have no authority over how businesses are run. I am saying that supporting something based on principle isn't the same as supporting or intending to cause negative consequences. I absolutely support gun rights. That doesn't mean I intend for people to be wrongly killed, yet that is precisely how it's often portrayed by Democrats. It's the same as the game Republicans play with abortion and anyone supporting it being a baby killer.

It's the inability to stop demonizing, as you just did with me, as Hillary and Biden certainly seemed to do with Trump voters, that is why our national conversations are breaking down and the political divide is growing.

1. That distinction has zero legal significance, which is obviously correct. If you let people say, "It's not that I'm hiring only white people because I want to hurt black people. I'm just doing it out of principle" then basically you've eviscerated the anti-discrimination laws to the point of complete uselessness. So you are, in fact, arguing against anti-discrimination laws.

2. Why shouldn't you be held to the logical consequences of your positions? Let's take an easy example. I want to drive an M-80 tank around town, even though I don't really know how to drive it. It's not that I intend to crush other cars and pedestrians; it's just that I want to do it and I guess that shit might happen. If I drive my tank and do in fact kill a pedestrian, why should I not be charged with homicide?

As to your 2nd Amendment example and abortion examples: there the claim is that there are countervailing benefits -- i.e. arguments on both sides. It's not that we want to abort embryos; it's that we favor women having control over their own bodies. And the contention is that women's control over their bodies is more important than whatever personhood can be ascribed to embryos. So if you say, "Roe was responsible for X fetuses being aborted," I would say that's true. That was the result of the decision. It was entirely predictable, and the justices made a choice in awareness of that tradeoff.

In the 2nd Amendment example, proponents of gun rights also attempt to cite countervailing benefits. It's just that those benefits are largely illusory, and/or trivial. What public good is realized by allowing people to walk around carrying assault rifles? None. It's a private good, borne of unchecked ego and/or paranoia. When you prioritize that -- or, as many others do, the enjoyment of shooting guns -- over shooting deaths, what does that say about you? You might not be intending to cause deaths, but you're prioritizing your own fun over others' lives.

That's why the 2nd Amendment case is much easier to make for unambiguously defensive uses of firearms. Like having a shotgun in the house to protect against intruders. There's a benefit there, and the cost is not high in terms of lives lost. That's not to say it's nothing -- some kids will get killed by unsecured firearms -- and the proponents should own that. Yes, some kids will die; that's the price we have to pay for being able to defend our homes. I don't agree with it, but it's not unreasonable. It's also not remotely the same as allowing people to walk into church with a gun. There are no benefits to that and obviously costs.

 

[ZenMode]

It is not that you intend for people to be wrongly killed; it's that you are willing for people to be wrongly killed as the price for your "freedom"

Correct and we all support freedoms that have some negative consequences. Do you want to ban/confiscate all guns? If not, you are also accepting negative consequences for a freedom. We may disagree on AR-15's, but that doesn't mean I support mass shootings or intend for gun rights to result in mass shootings.

 

[4thgenheel]

But you are still equating a belief that the owner can run his company as being the same as supporting the owner exploiting employees, which I really don't understand because, again, the employer/employee relationship is voluntary on both sides. Nobody is forced to hire you and you aren't forced to work somewhere.

what happens when all or even many/most of the business owners engage in varying degrees of exploitation and unfair practices?

 

[superrific]

Correct and we all support freedoms that have some negative consequences. Do you want to ban/confiscate all guns? If not, you are also accepting negative consequences for a freedom. We may disagree on AR-15's, but that doesn't mean I support mass shootings or intend for gun rights to result in mass shootings.

If you want to justify with cost-benefit analysis, then what is the point in hiding the costs? It's because you can't defend your priorities.

I don't need to hide costs. I favor eliminating coal, and support wind. Windmills kill way more birds than coal mining. I'll acknowledge that cost. I also don't care, because the bird deaths are orders of magnitude less serious than climate change (which would kill many, many times more birds than windmills ever could).

Own your own costs. If you think the business owner's freedom to discriminate is more important than the employee's right not to be discriminated against, then say it. That's your position. And you will be judged by your priorities. I believe in anti-discrimination. Is that a restriction on "freedom" in some sense? Yes, in some sense. It's also an expansion of freedom in the same sense. I'm very comfortable asserting the latter as more valuable than the former, far more valuable. I'm even comfortable admitting that sometimes anti-discrimination laws can have deleterious effects; all laws do, and the deleterious effects are much less rare and much less harmful than the benefits.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

"Let's cut our military budget in half." Truly unfathomable to hear those words come out of the mouth of a Republican president.

Are any cuts contemplated for China and Russia or are we just cutting "our military budget in half"?

 

[Healing]

Are any cuts contemplated for China and Russia or are we just cutting "our military budget in half"?

He's just overtly selling all of us out for nearly incalculable wealth for himself and a very, very small percentage of the US population.

 

[ZenMode]

what happens when all or even many/most of the business owners engage in varying degrees of exploitation and unfair practices?

This has been brought up before without an example. I don't support a completely hands-off approach to business by the federal government. What I'm saying is that the assumptions about intent, Because you support a specific policy, are misdirected.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I am just going to say that I know next to nothing about international relations and geopolitics. But it seems like Trump is basically trying to have democracy exit stage left and organize a US/China/Russia alliance.

Well, if you're planning to turn the USA into an Orban-style authoritarian regime and end our democracy, then this actually makes sense, as horrible as that sounds.

 

[ZenMode]

If you want to justify with cost-benefit analysis, then what is the point in hiding the costs? It's because you can't defend your priorities.

I don't need to hide costs. I favor eliminating coal, and support wind. Windmills kill way more birds than coal mining. I'll acknowledge that cost. I also don't care, because the bird deaths are orders of magnitude less serious than climate change (which would kill many, many times more birds than windmills ever could).

Own your own costs. If you think the business owner's freedom to discriminate is more important than the employee's right not to be discriminated against, then say it. That's your position. And you will be judged by your priorities. I believe in anti-discrimination. Is that a restriction on "freedom" in some sense? Yes, in some sense. It's also an expansion of freedom in the same sense. I'm very comfortable asserting the latter as more valuable than the former, far more valuable. I'm even comfortable admitting that sometimes anti-discrimination laws can have deleterious effects; all laws do, and the deleterious effects are much less rare and much less harmful than the benefits.

You are getting very specific while I am talking in generalities.

Since You brought up discrimination, let's talk about that as a general idea. I support a business's right to hire whoever they want to hire. If they run a gym that caters only to females, and they want to hire a 100% female staff, I'm fine with that. If they own a Panda Express, and want to hire only people who would stereotypically work at a Panda Express, go for it. If you want to have an all white, Indian, Asian or black staff. That's fine. If you currently have an all white staff and decide that DEI is the way to go, fire your lowest performing whites and replace them with black people... That's fine with me.

I can say that I support all of that and still say that I think racists are misguided morons.

However, if you are a liberal, there's a very high probability that I would be labeled a racist simply for supporting the right of businesses to hire whoever they want.

 

[StrangePackage]

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Trump is the most conservative president we've ever had.

 

[superrific]

However, if you are a liberal, there's a very high probability that I would be labeled a racist simply for supporting the right of businesses to hire whoever they want.

Indeed you would. Because it's a racist sentiment, whether you are willing to admit it or not. And it's not just liberals who would say that. Public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws have like 80% approval ratings, so to speak.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I think the modern Republican Party has taken the path it has largely due to the confluence of 3 main inputs (in no particular order)...

1) Globalization, and the resulting economic & cultural disruption, has harmed the rural and semi-rural areas that the largest part of Republicans tend to live in. A lot of jobs have been lost and, in doing so, a lot of ability for those rural areas to retain people have been lost. Another big part of the issue in these communities is that those left behind simply don't have the same standard of living they had before and they greatly fear losing the standard of living they currently have. A loft of folks are upset that younger folks don't have a great economic future in their small towns and therefore choose to leave to go where greater opportunities are. Additionally, globalization and its effects have brought folks into these rural communities who were not there even 20 years ago, often people of color, which have changed the way these communities see themselves. And so for many in these communities, they are very, very upset about both the economic and cultural changes that globalization has brought to their communities and they have chosen to both lash out at those they believe to be responsible for those changes and to take any steps they can to ensure that the remaining "economic pie" in their area goes to those like them and not folks they see as "others".

2) Demographic change has also been a significant input into the Republican push away from conservatism and toward authoritarian fascism. What Republicans see is a number of demographic changes to our country, all of which either scare them or which don't benefit them politically (or both).

- Urban areas continue to grow in both numbers and power, while rural areas experience "brain drain" and loss of power.
- The country is increasingly becoming one of racial/ethnic diversity. (Although Pubs have made a good run at Hispanic/Latinx folks over the last few years.)
- Women are increasingly taking hold of leadership positions, great and small, and are increasingly free of traditional gender restraints.
- Increasingly, minority groups who used to be content to hide themselves/remain on the margins of society are pushing for equality and a greater place of acknowledgment in and by society.

What Republicans have taken from this that their opportunities to both remain in power and/or use the power they obtain to keep a "traditional" society intact has and is greatly weakening. A pivotal event in this process for Republicans was Obama's election in 2008. Beyond electing on person of color to the presidency, the overwhelming nature of Democratic gains in Congress was a kind of shock to Republicans that let them know that without a major change that the long-term prognosis for their party and their desired America was not good. It lit a fire under a lot of Republicans, both leadership and, more importantly, proto-MAGA party members.

3) Republicans have been radicalized for the last 40-ish years and we're seeing the long-term fruits of those efforts. Republicans have been taught by right-wing media and, increasingly, by actual Republican politicians that Democrats aren't just folks with whom they have disagreements, they are the enemy. That policy differences aren't merely differences in opinions, goals, or perspectives, but that they will lead to the end of our country or society. That there is no way that Republicans can co-exist with non-Republicans because the differences are too great, that the only potential outcomes are either Republicans win and the country is "saved" or that Republicans lose and the country is "lost". And once a significantly large group of folks view the world in this black-or-white, right-vs-wrong manner, then there is no limit to what is not only acceptable but beneficial to ensure that the terrible things promised if "the others" should win does not happen. This is radical extremism no different than that which undergirds terrorism or revolutions. (Of course, the ironic thing is that in becoming such a radical body, Republicans have made themselves into the very type of extremist group that justifies the rhetoric being applied to them that they used against their opponents without actual reason.)

The combination of these 3 factors led Republicans into leaving conservatism behind and morphing into a body largely taken with authoritarian fascism. Their desire to preserve traditional hierarchies, norms, and social orders - when faced with forces that threatened to provide support for different priorities and outcomes - led them to reject full democracy, small government ideas, and even the rule of law for the raw power to attempt to preserve the social order and their place in it.

^Bingo. I might add a few details, but this is almost exactly my belief about what has happened to Republicans and our politics generally over the past fifty or so years, although it has greatly accelerated since the GOP sweep in the 1994 congressional elections under Clinton. That was the first election that really swept the vanguard of our current extreme-right regime into power (Gingrich likely being the most prominent). And I think Snoop's last paragraph sums it all up perfectly. White social conservatives know their numbers are steadily declining, and it has driven them to increasingly anti-democratic, intolerant extremes in their efforts to remain the people in charge - not just of our political system, but economic and cultural power as well.

All of Trump's EO's attacking DEI are simply a massive attempt to roll back all of the progress and gains that various minorities have made since at least the 70s. And if you don't agree, explain scrubbing basic things like Black History Month, Gay Pride Month, and Women's History Month from federal government websites. Those things are all now mainstream and have been around for decades at this point. What we're seeing with Trump 2.0 and the culture wars is a massive effort to force everyone to go back to the 1950s - a time when America was still overwhelmingly white, far less diverse, far more patriarchal and male-dominated, and our culture was dominated by conservative whites.

 

[ZenMode]

Indeed you would. Because it's a racist sentiment, whether you are willing to admit it or not. And it's not just liberals who would say that. Public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws have like 80% approval ratings, so to speak.

It's not a racist sentiment. It's a right of a private business owner to determine his/her staff sentiment. Will some business owners, who are racist, have their racism reflected in their hiring? Of course. That doesn't mean that I support racism, it means that I support the rights of private business owners, just as I would support the right of Ibram X Kendi to not allow white people into his private home.

 

[superrific]

It's not a racist sentiment. It's a right of a private business owner to determine his/her staff sentiment. Will some business owners, who are racist, have their racism reflected in their hiring? Of course. That doesn't mean that I support racism, it means that I support the rights of private business owners, just as I would support the right of Ibram X Kendi to not allow white people into his private home.

I'm not derailing the thread any further with this bullshit. Again we confront the problem of whether you simply can't understand, or don't want to understand because you like being a pain in the ass. Your attitude is what led to sharecropping.