Quo Vadis GOP?

[Malthus]

Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.

But. Were they?

What did Trump and the crazies achieve? Judges and tax cuts - the same agenda that the pragmatic Republicans would have pushed if we had President Romney, Cruz, Rubio or whoever else. Trump ran on isolationism, pulling out of foreign quagmires (and international organisations), protecting social security/Medicare, nativism and infrastructure spending.

Just like after the Tea Party - the pragmatic Republicans harnessed the crazies to deliver a standard small government and tax cuts agenda that's not been able to win an election for nigh on 40 years. I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.

Whether the crazies reject the pragmatists, or the other way around, don't you get the exact same thing - a split within the party?

It is hard to imagine anything else happening, unless the pragmatists immediately fall back in line. I mean, the crazy mob that stormed the Capitol was after Pence and "Republican traitors" more than they were after Democrats.

To my mind, the issue is whether the pragmatists will fall back in line or not. And that depends on whether they think it is in their best interests or not, in terms of vote-getting, in a scenario where terrorism by the crazies is a real threat.

[Malthus]

Krugman's notion - with with I agree - is based in part on the idea that more pragmatic Republicans coddled the crazies in the hope of gaining votes and thus power, only to find out that he crazies were driving the bus.

The natural conclusion, though, is that if the crazies no longer attract votes - if being associated with them actually loses votes - maybe the more pragmatic Republicans will cease coddling them.

It is still too early to know whether there is a line of violent insurrection beyond which the crazies start to lose more votes than they represent.  The fact that at least some Republicans were willing to vote for impeachment indicates that there may be.

If future violent incidents occur, as seems likely, my guess is that we will see a real split in the Republican Party.

"The people" seemed to like Trumpism. An election was just held at the conclusion of likely the worst year most voters can remember, with the unemployment high and the economy low. Trump increased his vote count from the first election and lost the tipping point state by 0.7%. Republicans did well in other elections.

It isn't hard to envision a fissure in the Republican party along the lines of what you mention.

But I think the Democrats are about to be divided as well. You have a very strong left wing with AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. You have a lot of moderate democats, especially in the Senate. You have a party that sees it controls the house, senate, and presidency and expects action on things like a Green New Deal and social justice reform. I don't think any really major legislation is going to come out of congress - the democrats are only going to have 222 or so out of 435 seats in the House and the Senate is a 50-50 split. They will need virtual unanimity to do anything, which is going to be really difficult to achieve.

That is a possibility; though I think the Democrats will have an easier task holding things together than the Republicans - as in "we must all work together otherwise the nuts will win".

[Valmy]

The moderate Democrats seeming to come to support the $2,000 stimulus checks is taking some of the wind out of the more left elements. If they can deliver on that I think the populist left will be successfully checked for the time being.

The new national minimum wage and decriminalizing marijuana are two other left populist policies I think they are prepared to adopt.

We'll see. Populism is going to be a powerful force all along the political spectrum for awhile and both parties need to make choice on what to do about it.

[Jacob]

But. Were they?

What did Trump and the crazies achieve? Judges and tax cuts - the same agenda that the pragmatic Republicans would have pushed if we had President Romney, Cruz, Rubio or whoever else. Trump ran on isolationism, pulling out of foreign quagmires (and international organisations), protecting social security/Medicare, nativism and infrastructure spending.

Just like after the Tea Party - the pragmatic Republicans harnessed the crazies to deliver a standard small government and tax cuts agenda that's not been able to win an election for nigh on 40 years. I don't think that the pragmatic Republicans will stop coddling the crazies, I think at some point the crazies will reach the point when they're asking "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I think that is the real threat/will be explosive for the GOP.

Yeah, I agree.

I don't think we're in situation where the pragmatic Republicans are questioning the wisdom of this path and wondering if the crazies will still deliver the vote.

Most pragmatic GOP types have either left or have pragmatically decided that embracing the crazies is the right move and thus become one with them.

And whether the crazies will stop delivering the votes is an open question IMO. I hope they will and that the decrease in votes due to the crazies is enough to counterbalance the naked attacks on democracy to keep the GOP in power. But I am far from certain that will go.

I guess the one thing I'm not in 100% agreement with you on is whether the "hey did you ever feel cheated" thing will be explosive to the GOP. I think the slide from radical nationalist small government party to radical nationalist big government authoritarian party could well be smooth and gradual rather than explosive.

If Trump or his successor comes out with "hey we've got good national health care that just happens to benefit white people more than others, and social benefits too" and "hard ban for abortions (with exceptions for middle class and better white people with the right connections)" and so on, I think that could very well work for them. That is, of course, if they can chart the course.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why people question whether the crazies are already running the party. 

[Jacob]

Whether the crazies reject the pragmatists, or the other way around, don't you get the exact same thing - a split within the party?

It is hard to imagine anything else happening, unless the pragmatists immediately fall back in line. I mean, the crazy mob that stormed the Capitol was after Pence and "Republican traitors" more than they were after Democrats.

To my mind, the issue is whether the pragmatists will fall back in line or not. And that depends on whether they think it is in their best interests or not, in terms of vote-getting, in a scenario where terrorism by the crazies is a real threat.

For me that question is already answered... 5-10% of the party won't fall into line, the rest will. And those who don't fall into line are getting drummed out and replaced in the next few years.

The question is whether the GOP voting public is going to come along with the crazies. My guess is they will.

[Malthus]

The issue is whether the attack on the Capitol together with losing the presidency and the senate changes things for the Republicans, or not. Particularly if the attack is not a singular event but part of a domestic terror campaign.

Will they keep going on the same path, hoping that they can regain control, or will the party split?

So far, from what I read here, the consensus appears to be that they will just keep going along the same lines.

[Jacob]

The issue is whether the attack on the Capitol together with losing the presidency and the senate changes things for the Republicans, or not. Particularly if the attack is not a singular event but part of a domestic terror campaign.

Will they keep going on the same path, hoping that they can regain control, or will the party split?

So far, from what I read here, the consensus appears to be that they will just keep going along the same lines.

That is my expectation yes. If McConnell pulls the trigger on impeachment, then I think there may be a different path but I'm guessing he's going the usual way of expressing concern and doing nothing.

Now, if the terrorists keep escalating then the public may turn against them, but I expect it'll stay at a level where the terror has an impact (slowing any Democratic agenda, instilling fear in "the wrong sorts", and keeping GOP politicians from doubting too publically), but not enough to change opinions of those who don't want their opinions changed.

I also expect the GOP will go hard (or rather, even harder) on voter suppression in states where they control the state governments, and between the terror, the voter suppression, and the white supremacist messaging will stay competitive for quite a while with the crazies in charge.

[The Larch]

The new national minimum wage and decriminalizing marijuana are two other left populist policies I think they are prepared to adopt.

I don't think you can really call decriminalizing cannabis in the US a left populist policy anymore. I mean, it is already legal in one way or the other in most states, nowadays, the places where it is still criminalized are the ones that are still behind the times, and the bizarreness that it's still illegal at the federal level is an anacronism. And for what it's worth this is something that has been achieved through popular referendums,.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think you can really call decriminalizing cannabis in the US a left populist policy anymore. I mean, it is already legal in one way or the other in most states, nowadays, the places where it is still criminalized are the ones that are still behind the times, and the bizarreness that it's still illegal at the federal level is an anacronism. And for what it's worth this is something that has been achieved through popular referendums,.

I think Valmy means leftist in the sense of coming from the left of the political spectrum, not in the sense of fringe left.

[The Larch]

I don't think you can really call decriminalizing cannabis in the US a left populist policy anymore. I mean, it is already legal in one way or the other in most states, nowadays, the places where it is still criminalized are the ones that are still behind the times, and the bizarreness that it's still illegal at the federal level is an anacronism. And for what it's worth this is something that has been achieved through popular referendums,.

I think Valmy means leftist in the sense of coming from the left of the political spectrum, not in the sense of fringe left.

But is this issue still political at all in the US? I had the impression it was basically becoming mainstream at this point.

[Admiral Yi]

But is this issue still political at all in the US? I had the impression it was basically becoming mainstream at this point.

Not sure I'm aware of any red states that have allowed recreational.

[The Larch]

But is this issue still political at all in the US? I had the impression it was basically becoming mainstream at this point.

Not sure I'm aware of any red states that have allowed recreational.

Taking a quick look at wiki, Montana, S. Dakota and Alaska. Many others have decriminalized it or legalized its medical use.

[Admiral Yi]

Taking a quick look at wiki, Montana, S. Dakota and Alaska. Many others have decriminalized it or legalized its medical use.

Fair enough.  But you can see that it skews red/blue state.

[The Larch]

Taking a quick look at wiki, Montana, S. Dakota and Alaska. Many others have decriminalized it or legalized its medical use.

Fair enough.  But you can see that it skews red/blue state.

Oh yes, don't get me wrong, I'm aware that this is something pioneered by blue states. I'm just saying that at this point making pot legal at the federal level is the reasonable thing to do, and eliminates the paradox of it being legal in more and more states, but illegal federally. The states that want to keep it illegal or restricted for medical use can keep it as such if they want, and it won't interfere with the others.