Quo Vadis GOP?

[Sheilbh]

The two silver linings are that the minority of (1/3) of GOP voters that reject the madness haven't budged despite facing enormous pressure and propaganda, and the minority of self-identified independents that entertain such theories has materially decreased as well

So in theory if the GOP doubles down on insurrectionism, they should be losing lots of elections.  Of course, since pro-insurrectionists now control electoral mechanisms in many states, they may be able to maintain control no matter how many elections they lose.  But the consolation will be the sad and serene expression of resignation on Justice Roberts face as he reluctantly rubber stamps the next voting rights outrage, because losing democracy is a fair price to pay to make sure the rascally lefties won't go around doing radical things like enforcing the 14th and 15th amendments as written and intended.

To play Devil's Advocate - aren't they that 1/3 one of the big problems. That despite the madness and being aware of the pressure or propaganda on their side to row in behind this project, they stay. They remain - because judges/tax cuts/enjoying liberal tears or whatever justification.

I agree on the risk around electoral mechanisms or consolation - but those voters are the difference between Republicans losing so catastrophically it forces a reset in their approach and winning about 45-47% of the vote (which is where the GOP have been since 2004 in Presidential elections) which is enough to sometimes win the White House and to do well in the Senate and, if they change the rules and gerrymander, may be enough to keep the House etc.

But I'm aware that my view that the only thing that changes or stops this process is huge electoral defeat is very shaped by British politics - where we have a very political constitution and elections are the ultimate check in our system rather than something that operates almost below the wider checks and balances. So, in particular, looking at the American right 1964 started the takeover of the Republican party by the ideological radical right - when, in my theory, it should have ended it and ushered in 30 years of glorious Romneyite rule

I've said before but I think Congress as a check is meaningless now (not just because of GOP behaviour but also the wider media discourse around Congress); the courts are under immense pressure - I'd argue they are still holding, just; and the most effective bit is America's decentralisation and the role of the states but now the GOP is focused on winning control of state electoral mechanisms I don't know how long that holds. If those don't work and are all made susceptible to minority control - then I don't know that a British style electoral humiliation is possible, produce the response you'd want to see or has the consequences of losers losing power.

As I say I don't really know how a country pulls back from one party believing (wrongly) that the system is rigged against them and they have been cheated out of power.

[The Minsky Moment]

To play Devil's Advocate - aren't they that 1/3 one of the big problems. That despite the madness and being aware of the pressure or propaganda on their side to row in behind this project, they stay. They remain - because judges/tax cuts/enjoying liberal tears or whatever justification.

Maybe.  No way to really now without deeper polling to identify this group more specifically and what they are doing and what they going to do.  I agree that if they continue to vote GOP in general elections even when Qanon Qandidates take the primary, then its a huge problem.  If they stay at home OTOH, it could have a significant impact.

So, in particular, looking at the American right 1964 started the takeover of the Republican party by the ideological radical right - when, in my theory, it should have ended it and ushered in 30 years of glorious Romneyite rule

But the immediate effect of 1964 was the rise of Nixon, who despite his toxic personality, governed very much as a moderate post New Deal Republican - high social spending and environmental protection in domestic policy; detente and engagement in foreign policy.  Putting aside Reagan for a moment, the subsequent GOP presidents were Gerald Ford and the two Bushes, all of whom took moderate domestic policy positions. 

So the case for the radical Goldwater takeover rests on Reagan.  Admittedly Reagan was a very significant figure and admittedly he adopted rhetoric from the hard right of his party.  But Reagan's unique genius was convincing the right of his party that he was one of them while governing far more conventionally.  Reagan certainly talked the part of the unyielding cold warrior, but his actual foreign policy legacy was a series of arms control accords and engagement with Gorbachev, culminating in his extraordinary proposal for complete mutual nuclear disarm.  On domestic policy the early experiment with Lafferite economics was soon reversed and eventually replaced with bipartisan tax reform.  Reagan thrilled the right with his de-regulatory rhetoric (9 most terrifying words) and his Trumpian comments about trees causing pollution. But after the turmoil of the scandal-ridden tenures of Gorsuch at EPA and Watt at Interior there was another big course correction, with Bill Ruckelshaus returning to EPA, to spearhead the ultimately successful program against ozone depleting chemicals and new initiatives on lead additives and asbestos. On social policy, the pattern was similar - after initial budget cuts in the earlier years, Reagan pivoted to cooperating with bipartisan reform efforts.

The more significant point is that although Trump and Trumpism has precursors in the Republican party, he really is sui generis as a GOP President.  Trump's political ancestor is not Goldwater, it is Pat Buchanan, with some style points from Newt Gingrich.

[Razgovory]

The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.

[Jacob]

The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.

The tension between racism and what's good for business and the nation resolved in favour of racism.

[Sheilbh]

But the immediate effect of 1964 was the rise of Nixon, who despite his toxic personality, governed very much as a moderate post New Deal Republican - high social spending and environmental protection in domestic policy; detente and engagement in foreign policy.  Putting aside Reagan for a moment, the subsequent GOP presidents were Gerald Ford and the two Bushes, all of whom took moderate domestic policy positions. 

Yes - although the context of that is relevant as well. So in 1968 the choices for GOP nominee in the run up to the convention were Nixon, Rockefeller, Romney and possibly Reagan (who was still very new politically). So Nixon may have been a moderate, but he was also the least moderate plausible option.

I agree on the rest of your points about Reagan and Trump as the inheritor of Pat Buchanan.

The slight complicating factor I suppose is that the "movement conservative" right took over the other power centres of the GOP first - though it's absolutely true that their elected politicians (especially as President) were not as right wing as they wanted. I think in part this is linked to the "movement conservative" narrative that they are the latest in a line of dissenters from the New Deal. So they have transformed the GOP into an ideological party rather than a coalition like the Democrats, but also they did it by setting up and funding alternative institutions.

For the radical right, they may not have been taking over in the 70s, but they were creating think tanks or campaigning institutions like the Cato Institute, the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation and (in 1982) the Federalist Society. All through this period but especially in the 80s and the 90s they were creating a set of alternative media institutions.

While the radical right might have felt let down by most of their politicians they had created the infrastructure for developing and propagating their ideas, developing talent and, in the media, a mechanism for disciplining their politicians. I think that's the takeover - and because they collect the donations, the bright young right-wing talent and the viewers in the long run it forced the more establishment institutions into line as well. So Gingrich didn't arrive like lightning out of a clear blue sky but with people in the background doing ideological thinking and a pipeline for talent (most visible in the Federalist Society) but also for new politicians and I think that continues to this day.

I don't think there's necessarily a clear line from Goldwater to Trump but I think there is a clear line from the post-Goldwater radical right takeover of the GOP and what's happening now, which is built around Trump - and I don't think Trump necessarily any of these views, he's a mood/emotion-based candidate but there are people clearly building an intellectual framework around him.

I also don't think there's any equivalent to that on the left or even just the centrist/liberal part of politics.

[Oexmelin]

GOP Could Retake the House in 2022 Just by Gerrymandering Four Southern States

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/07/gop-could-retake-the-house-in-2022-just-by-gerrymandering-four-southern-states/

[Oexmelin]

Organizing what?  Bergen County?  The tri-state area?  The problem doesn't lie there.  You might as well ask why the ordinary citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 failed to convince southern planters of the virtues of abolition. It wasn't for lack of organization,

No, it wasn't. But the citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 probably lacked the sort of means of communication, resources, and political pressures that are those of ordinary citizens of many parts of America today.

My point isn't that focusing on the rich and powerful can't produce meaningful change. It's great if you are in a position to influence these people. It's that this sort of analysis can be utterly paralyzing, thereby leading to what really seems like a deadly combination of resignation and wishful thinking. If the matter is entirely in the hands of rich Republicans, it's too late, and it's out of reach for most people. Might as well bail out and hope wealth and health insurance shields you from the consequences. Might as well get rid of the pretense of democracy at this point. The Republicans seem to be very close to taking that step. 

But I am willing to bet there are many rich Democrats as well. And there are many, many establishment Democrats, currently in power, and holding a lot of that power in their hands, yet doing astonishingly little. Or, to put it otherwise, wishing to be the embodiment of prudence - if not resignation and wishful thinking. The populist right could always count on the support of a few rich kooks. But they took over thanks to a relentless grassroots movement. Angry trash radio doesn't exist on the left. It is up to y'all to figure out how to fund efforts, pressure elected officials, amplify messages - if not in your safe New York district, elsewhere. As I said, I think the danger warrants a lot more effort than what people seem willing to put in. 

[Razgovory]

The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.

The tension between racism and what's good for business and the nation resolved in favour of racism.

I honestly don't think most of the GOP is racist.  Sure, some are, but most aren't.  It's more subtle than that.  I've heard the term "racial resent" used a lot when referring to Trump supporters and it is probably a more accurate term.  They support systems that result in racist outcomes.  They say racist things without actually realizing they are doing so (micro aggression), they believe that society is treating everyone the same and believe that changes with racial justice will cause them to be disadvantaged.  Some already believe they are disadvantaged.  For most of these people racism is subconscious.  I remember reading a news story a while back where a reporter was asking Trump supporters about racism.  One woman became indignant saying she's not racist, her grandchildren are black.  I think that carry's more weight than "I have black friends".

I don't think these people are unreachable.  I believe that if a bunch of Missouri rednecks sat down and really talked to people associated with BLM, they could find common ground.  Not debate, or a shouting match but just a talk.  Blacks living in St.Louis and hillbillies in the Ozarks don't understand each other.  If they made an effort to understand where other side is coming from then you can have productive dialog over a host of political issues.

Unfortunately, both racial resentment a out-and-out racism is becoming more common.

[Jacob]

I have no real disagreement about your analysis, I think it's more of a terminology thing. When I said "racism" I included both what you term "racial resentment" but also "political causes where it's possible to have a non-racist reasons for supporting them, but a significant amount of the rhetoric surrounding them are infused with actual racism".

While individual GOP politicians and supporters may very well be not racist in the "I hate people of different races and am motivated by animus against them" sense, the causes that their party champions inevitably aligns with the objectives of such racists pretty much any time where it's an option.

And as such, I think it's fair to say that within the GOP the tension that existed between racism and what's good for business and the nation has resolved in favour of racism, whatever exists in the hearts and souls of individual Republicans.

The nice thing about that statement is that it's also predictive. We can put it to the test. In any forthcoming issue, if there's an unresolved question and the options are "do whatever real unambiguous racists would be happy with (wrapped up in whatever justifications to make it palatable to people who'd prefer to not think of themselves as racist) vs "good for industry and the nation" which option is taken?

It seems to me the racists have been obviously driving the car since Trump at the least.

It doesn't mean it can't change, of course, but right now I think it holds true - and it provides a pretty good explanation for the question you posed which was "why did the GOP become so anti-immigrant when previously it was not."

[viper37]

The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.

The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

[viper37]

Organizing what?  Bergen County?  The tri-state area?  The problem doesn't lie there.  You might as well ask why the ordinary citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 failed to convince southern planters of the virtues of abolition. It wasn't for lack of organization,

No, it wasn't. But the citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 probably lacked the sort of means of communication, resources, and political pressures that are those of ordinary citizens of many parts of America today.

My point isn't that focusing on the rich and powerful can't produce meaningful change. It's great if you are in a position to influence these people. It's that this sort of analysis can be utterly paralyzing, thereby leading to what really seems like a deadly combination of resignation and wishful thinking. If the matter is entirely in the hands of rich Republicans, it's too late, and it's out of reach for most people. Might as well bail out and hope wealth and health insurance shields you from the consequences. Might as well get rid of the pretense of democracy at this point. The Republicans seem to be very close to taking that step. 

But I am willing to bet there are many rich Democrats as well. And there are many, many establishment Democrats, currently in power, and holding a lot of that power in their hands, yet doing astonishingly little. Or, to put it otherwise, wishing to be the embodiment of prudence - if not resignation and wishful thinking. The populist right could always count on the support of a few rich kooks. But they took over thanks to a relentless grassroots movement. Angry trash radio doesn't exist on the left. It is up to y'all to figure out how to fund efforts, pressure elected officials, amplify messages - if not in your safe New York district, elsewhere. As I said, I think the danger warrants a lot more effort than what people seem willing to put in. 

Rich Democrats donors tend to give money to both parties.  They do not feel welcome at the Dems conventions, unlike Republicans.

[The Minsky Moment]

I honestly don't think most of the GOP is racist. 

Sure they are a party that does things like arrange for the ratio of polling places to population in white areas to be  multiples higher than in blacks areas but they aren't racist; nothing to see there.

The irony is that while turning "critical race theory" into a rhetorical bete noire (see what I did there), the GOP is methodically going about proving the cogency of theory and its relevance to today's American society.  You are right that the main problem is probably not individual racist attitudes, but the GOP's willingness to entrench structural barriers to political participation by non-whites as means to entrench their own power.

[Oexmelin]

St. Louis County health director says he faced racial slurs, was assaulted at council meeting

Councilman Tim Fitch made it a point to emphasize "for the assembled crowd that I was not from this country," Khan wrote. Khan has been a United States citizen since 2012 and has worked in public health for 25 years.

After Fitch's comment - and a social media post Khan saw later that night by Mark McCloskey about mask mandates being "un-American" - Khan said he heard people mocking his accent while he was presenting. He said people in crowd were doing their impersonation of The Simpson's character, Apu.

"While I was presenting my analysis of COVID-19 to the Council, two politicians (Mr. McCloskey and Paul Berry) seated right behind me consistently berated me and tried to distract me from my presentation," Khan wrote in the letter. "When I asked you to intervene to prevent Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Berry from interfering with my presentation, you lectured me – not them."

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-county-health-director-says-he-faced-racial-slurs-was-assaulted-at-council-meeting/article_0cf3e388-f010-11eb-876b-4b598d4bc352.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR2_N9ARmRAV8vw89FtjnuLljsYAwIH9c4ueK74CBK8l-3HuRBA1wyjCohU

[ulmont]

The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

[Razgovory]

The GOP became increasingly anti-immigrant in the years after the Civil War culminating with the Immigration act of 1924 which basically banned nonwhites from coming into the country, but that changed after WW2.  Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants and George W. Bush tried to create a path to citizenship.  The GOP came to believe that immigration was a good thing.  What I don't understand is why that changed.

The dominant anglo-saxon culture -

sorry I stopped reading at that point.