Stress causes fabric to rip, and that is what today has brought to the GOP: its traditional alliance of business leaders, racists and misogynists cultural conservatives is coming apart at the seams:
First, Paul Ryan finds it untenable to continue to support Trump.
Second, the alt-right has threatened to attack its own party. NYT:
Ms. Conway also repeatedly indicated that she was aware of Republican lawmakers who had behaved inappropriately toward young women, and whose criticism of Mr. Trump was therefore hypocritical.
In Europe, fascist parties nationalist far-right parties like Golden Dawn have arisen after extremists split away from traditional right-wing governing coalitions. Our own David, early on, compared Trump to the leaders of these contemporary European far-right splinter groups.
We are witnessing profound changes in the GOP.
For the Democratic Party to flex its muscles, embrace laborers, and nail down the next eight years of Supreme Court judges….
Or not, depending on us, I guess.
This isn’t the first place I’ve seen them portrayed as a threat, but the hypocrisy point is enough. If she’s making a threat, it seems (a little) out of character. That is, in character for Trump, out of character for Conway.
were evidently on television. Here’s what the Times said:
The Daily Wire (whatever the hell that is) cites MSNBC with the quote:
I still don’t see a threat there. A nasty comment, sure, but not a threat.
threat. It would take more behind-the-scenes knowledge to appreciate the seriousness of the “threat.”
Wikipedia says her husband was an advisor to Paula Jones.
polling company, so such threats may not be a bad business move.
When I saw your comment I was worried what did I say this time?
Factions who just couldn’t get along to win an election.
Eventually they turned things around, but you could be looking at Democratic presidents for another 12 years or so.
predictions this far out, but in 12 years, there will also have been a huge demographic shift that doesn’t look like it will find today’s GOP very appealing. It doesn’t now.
We’re now playing for the senate and congress. The first will most likely go Democratic. We may make inroads in the latter.
We’re looking at a sea change in American politics, one way or another, and it starts with the fracture of the GOP.
Charlie Baker looks like what the GOP could become, however that leaves out all the social conservatives and “populists” (I can’t succinctly describe them, but this is the Trump core voter). Remember that a “never been elected to anything” unknown, Fisher, got 30% vs “best chance in the general” Baker in the primary.
So anti-abortion, anti-gay, and people who hate the country club set are out. Probably need to jettison the gun lovers too. What is left?
Maybe a coalition of DeLeo-like D’s and Baker-like R’s across the country forms in the middle. That would be bad news for the Progressives and the hard Right.
Charlie Baker’s and 1/3 mouthbreathing knuckledraggers, we might be able to get something done in this country. We Democrats used to host a large number of crazies, so our parties split them. After Civil Rights, the GOP got a monopoly on wingnuts. The True Left hasn’t had much sway in the Democratic Party since the 1970s. The crazies will have to go somewhere.
Millennials are as a whole more liberal than my generation (I’m 52). They are more concerned about others and more apt to make some sacrifices for others through government. Like every generation, they’ll have their shortcomings. So far, they’re strongly non-partisan, if nonetheless liberal.
inhabited by some members of both parties. This was where the deals got made. We all seem to pine for those days, but the path to getting there again may not exist, despite the fact that probably 55% of the country would put themselves there.
I know David and Bob among others disagree, but prior darlings Santorum and Huckabee flamed out, and they failed to help Ted Cruz. Many of them like Robertson, Bauer, Reed, and Falwell Jr. defected to Donald sooner than that, dishonoring themselves in the process. Domestic neoconservatives and values voters have been swept aside by fiscally probitive Tea Partiers and a renewed called for cultural (re: white) volk nationalism rather than a culturally Christian conservatism. And they all have been discredited by these tapes, especially Cruz and especially Pence.
There has been little mention of abortion, it’s obvious Trump and future nominees will surrender to the national consensus rather than fighting back gay rights, and the religious right will be split between those that adopt Trumpism and those that don’t. This makes it easier for a socially moderate candidate to break through. Maybe not one as socially liberal as Baker, but certainly Brian Sandoval could break through.
In 2000, Pat Buchanan warned George Bush that he had to become prolife, kow tow to religous voters, etc. to earn his pivotal support in the election.
Dubya told him not to let the door hit him on the ass on his way out.
Buchanan formed his Constitution PArty which was a colossal failure because NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ENDORSED HIS EXTREME VIEWS. So they came snivelling back. And their great hope, Ted Cruz, couldn’t get the nomination either.
IMO, what keeps ‘evangelicals’ alive as a sphere of interest is liberals in the media who like to use them as boogeymen. They accidently created Trump in the same way.
I’ve been watching a solid PBS Series called ‘The Contenders’ which went over his three runs for office and it’s hard not to conclude Dubya avoided repeating the sins of the father by embracing a more supply side and values conservative agenda. No Souters or tax increases from him, and a strict approach to abortion and opposing gay rights. It’s hard to argue that Trump’s platform isn’t just Buchanans redux. The base is the new establishment which will make it harder to win elections.
I will agree the media overstates the political power of the religious right which has been waning for the last decade, as evangelicals are beginning to lose members at similar rates to the mainline churches and the next generation of leaders are trying to be more inclusive and less political. Their two signature issues are overwhelmingly opposed by the incoming generation of voters. I could see my cohort begin to be more fiscally conservative as we are able to buy homes, form families, and have to pay more taxes. I can’t see us abandoning social equality any time soon.
I’m sure they’ll have local effects however, and we’ll see if they still exert pressure in 2020 in the nominating process.
Trump is Trump, but the GOP would be faring (at this point) no better with Cruz. He is a whole ‘nother level of crazy/weird, besides being creepy. His rhetoric in no way disguises that.
Which unfortunately hurts the argument that a more traditional conservative could win. The halcyon days of August where it looked like Texas, Georgia, Arizona and the House were in play are over. She’s stabilized, but he could outperform Romney in the Midwest and pick off a few Obama states (IA, OH, and WI in order of likelihood), even if it’s still highly probable he loses the whole election.
I agree Cruz was less electable. Anecdotally, I know a few independent populists/Reagan Democrats who voted Trump in the primary and would have never voted for Cruz. I suspect we will see some more candidates in the economic left/social right bucket emerge in the next cycle. It’s a potent combination for winning the nomination even if it’s self limiting in the general.
Utah is in play. Utah.
And Trump is campaigning against McCain.
They were a powerful coalition because they were quite disciplined on choice of issues, and were quite reliable at coming out to vote, in force, even in off-year elections. And they still are, which is why the GOP is likely to hold onto state legislatures, and thus the Congress.
But Trump definitely exposed a problem, in that lots of what were assumed to be evangelical voters really aren’t evangelical Christians in any meaningful sense. That will make it hard going forward for them to be disciplined in choice of issue/candidate.
However, I don’t think I am quite ready to pronounce the Christian Right dead, because a sizable voting bloc that comes out reliably, even in off years will always be powerful. Particularly when its opposition on the left seems only able to be energized for presidential elections, only.
…and then those who have served such partisan districts, but then get elected to the Senate carry those habits with them.
with the technical expertise Obama and Clinton have targeted voters.
While the DNC was busy funding Obama for 2012, the RSLCC spent a mere $50 million to flip 13 statehouses and totally control gerrymandering for the 2010-2020 cycle. The first three chapters are instructive enough on how this worked and how they got away with it, and it’s pretty easy to formulate a counter strategy for creating progressive statehouses.
Who Will Tell the People by William Greider.
All the more important now (given that it was written almost a quarter century ago), the book discusses how, in the aftermath of Democratic disinvestment from locally-organized grassroots politics, the result was what Greider called the Grand Bazaar and the emergence of “rancid populism” as a Republican tactic, the logical extension of which is the Trump candidacy.
FWIW, one can chart Massachusetts-specific iterations even today in the Republican triumph-by-default in Worcester County.
On a milder level, the same grassroots disinvestment by the DSC was Charlie Baker’s biggest political asset in 2014. Consider that one-half of Baker’s margin of victory in ’14 came from his increased support in Boston, relative to 2010.
Is a term I have seen usedto describe the phenomenon. As opposed to “social conservative,” as has been used to describe the evangelical Christian vote. Cultural conservatives don’t get too upset about Trump’s marital infidelities, or fake anti-abortion position, but get REALLY exercised about all this damn political correctness.
For a long time, a lot of their attitude was just assumed to be covered by the Christian Right, but it turns out that their views aren’t really moored in religion at all.
I think there is considerable overlap between ‘values voters’ and ‘cultural conservatives’, but those ‘cultural conservatives’ are the larger number and stronger coalition at present. A true believer like Beck or Erickson has to abandon Trump, because they recognize the hypocrisy in condemning Clinton or in the past condemning Guiliani over infidelities in personal life and political orientation that prevent them from being with Trump today. But the preacher operators like Falwell, Reed, or Bauer would rather be relevant with the new Republican coalition than assert their principles. And that fissure is real and will go deep.
We’ve seen Richard Moore, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, take an inclusive approach to immigration, race, and economics that will likely make that subset of voters up for grabs. Mormons and conservative Catholics are similarly unmoored from the new cultural conservative coalition. So there is a fissure that will dilute the power of the religious right to articulate a hard line on social issues.
I do worry that the new cultural conservatives are actually substantially worse than the old lot. At least social conservatives gave lip service to fighting poverty, including blacks and immigrants, and insisting on character counting. The new batch is far more likely to overtly support racial and cultural policies that are highly illiberal, and a more powerful centralized government to enforce them.
Last night, we heard Donald Trump threaten to abuse his office and jail Ms. Clinton (emphasis mine):
While this is, indeed, absolutely unprecedented during a campaign, it is not unprecedented in our history. Richard Nixon was about to be impeached — with Republican support — for doing exactly this. Mr. Nixon resigned because it was clear he would be impeached and would be convicted if impeached. Here is Article 2, section 5 of the Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee (emphasis mine):
The Department of Justice and the Attorney General do not exist to carry out the whim of the President. Perhaps Mr. Trump has spent too much time with Mr. Putin.
That’s like fifth down the list of recent Trump scandals, but it makes what the Clinton’s were accused of with Whitewater look like an accounting error.
…it’s multiple state AGs!
There are no profound changes in the GOP yet. We’ll have to wait ’til after Hillary’s election to see what happens to The Party of Lincoln (TPOL). Will these racist tools of the Koch Bros., like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, continue to rule, or will TPOL go the way of the Whigs? I suppose this country needs two parties, but it will continue to be hard to give reasons why … unless TPOL starts living up to its namesake.
for what Trump is selling. You package Trumpism with a slightly more competent politician, and you have… a problem.
The question is whether Trumpism is a thing that exists outside that guy’s ego. Does “Build a Wall” work if it isnt the best wall in the history of walls, believe me?
.. John McCain.
The notion that Donald Trump came up with the idea for a wall all on his own is compartmentalization. While the idea of a wall is simple-minded-dumbed-down-progression-of-idiocy enough for him (immigrants coming –> border porous –> build wall ) he wasn’t the first to conceive it.
Trump, in fact, isn’t saying anything substantively different from things most Republicans have said anytime over the past thirty years. It is his affect that is entirely different: preening, bullying, prowling and bellicose. I, in fact, think he’s just a jumped-up Dick Cheney, without the smarm.
In other words, it is his temperament.
He is making Ms. Clinton’s strategy of focusing on his temperament (and pushing his buttons so that he demonstrates it) look like a master-stroke.
The behavior of the two candidates since last Friday is a compelling argument to vote for Ms. Clinton. One can only imagine what a hostile government would do to Mr. Trump — and, by implication, to all of us.
I chose “the wall” out of the air, because of the sheer silliness of the “best wall ever, believe me” line.
But the scary thing about Trump isn’t necessarily where he takes a long-standing conservative position, even a very hard-line one, and “turns it up to 11.” The scary things have been those where he departs radically from what we all consider to be conservatism,and does it with absolutely no consequence at all from his base.
He has spent weeks ridiculing veterans, ex-POWs, and even Gold Star families. He loves loves loves Russia, and wants to follow its leadership on the world stage. Thinks NATO is a waste because Europeans aren’t tough like Russia. Wants to break up the EU!!! Wants to support Soviet/Russian client Assad. Was adamantly opposed to the Iraq War (even if not true, an unexpected appeal to the right). Shits on the national security “establishment.”
The kooky economics on gold standard and the Federal Reserve have always been part of the kooky right since the days of John Birch, but it is hard to make a real argument that all of this springs from some evil seed planted by Reagan.
Is it really the case that 40% of the electorate wants to jettison the western alliance and instead become Russia’s assistant?
Raise taxes on companies we don’t like to punish them. The phrase “raise taxes” and not even a pretense of loving small-government liberty. We have to think about whether we should allow all these constitutional liberties, such as freedom of contract. Bill of Rights liberties, other than the 2nd Amendment, never a big deal among conservatives, but “Freedom of Contract” was, and he boldly says fuck that. And not even a murmur among the GOP base.
I understand what you are saying and don’t disagree that, in a rational politic, your analysis would fit… but it does not, and, what is more, it never has: I offer as evidence the infamous ‘purple heart band-aids’ popular in the summer of 2004. Further evidence can be had by looking back at 2012 when Mitt Romney couldn’t even discipline himself to maintain a self-imposed 24 hour silence after the attacks at Benghazi. Politics has always stopped at the waters edge… for everybody else. The implementation of “Medicare Part D”, first passed in 2003, was the most replete mix of the crudest legislative pork, most direct economic mandates and the biggest of big government ever: nothing about it ever resembled anything any conservative ever said… very much the opposite. Name any political or economic rule of thumb that the GOP has purported to abide by and I will find you a past example — often more than one — of their willing and egregious shattering of it… and not paying any price for it.
The only thing that Republicans and conservatives in general have been consistent in has been their choice of bogeyman: liberals in general and the Clintons in particular. To such a degree that oft-dixxying re-contextualizing occur on the fly: you can do anything, and not pay the price you normally would, so long as it is done as offense against liberals. We saw this when Clinton was hounded to impeachment over an affair by the serial philanderers Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde. This has led conservative rank-and-file to a rigid unwillingness to countenance the legitimacy of the ‘other side’ and drives conservatives further and further right: since they can’t get anything meaningful done; and since they have already countenanced all manner of lies and mischief; and since they can’t permit themselves to work with the other side; the only direction to go is further and further into that rabbit hole. There is no other way to explain the absurdity of a Trump candidacy. Sure Trump might be more brash and take wilder swings with a wider arc, but it’s really just a difference in scale and not in type… As long as his opponent is Hillary Clinton he has a very vocal, very loyal and very insistent cadre of supporters who will support anything he does.
I forgot the Kerry thing. I still tend to see that as a product of a very intense and very divisive cultural environment during the early 70s. When VVAW did the medal/ribbon throwaway/return, it was most certainly a hyper-inflammatory act, and taken, as intended, as a very personal and very direct insult by a large number of veterans, then and since (including quite a bit of the older part of my family, which were, and still are straight-ticket Dem voters). When he did the “reporting for duty” bit, it required a bit of a climbdown, which he had never really been required to navigate here in MA. I’m not sure if they weren’t ready for it, but the candidate’s defense was ill-handled.
Bush took an indirect shot at McCain in this way in 2000– he abandoned veterans on Agent Orange etc., and went dirtier than that–but not on the POW thing.
In any event, I also draw at least some distinction because these were directed at a candidate in the heat of election; Trump’s have been toss-asides, and the only one remotely relevant to the campaign was the Khans, because they appeared at the DNC.
You’re right about Medicare Part D– but that is also a wonky policy thing. Both political parties are deficit hawks when out of power and not when in power. It’s kind of like their position on the filibuster.
But, NATO, Europe, the western alliance, veterans, POWs– these are things that are potent symbols, grasped by all, and aren’t just wonky policy stuff that come and go with the political wind. Reagan based a huge amount of his persona on these things, fueled by the backlash against things like Kerry and VVAW “returning” their medals in the 70s. “These are the boys of Pont-du-Hoc…” and “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” remain iconic moments of his presidency, for a reason.
These things are far more powerful, emotionally and symbolically, than are “family values” or budget deficits. It still shocks me that Trump can call Iraq veterans “weak;” can disparage McCain specifically because he was a POW; can say, “eh, maybe fuck NATO” and pay no price. And some of those things happened during the primary.
I don’t think any other candidate could do those things and survive ans thrive. Perhaps I will be proved wrong.
But those very same Vietnam Vets who were offended by the ribbon throwing in the 70s should have been offended by Donald Trump’s mocking of John McCain’s POW status.
So I don’t know what to make of that disconnect.
Thank you for clarifying what I was trying to get at.
…of just what I was saying. A lot of people on the right, Reagan included but I’m thinking also of Joe McCarthy, were excused a lot of really bad behavior because that behavior was in service to the fight against the Communists. After Communism the bad behavior continued in the face of a new enemy (Iran-Contra being a crystalline example of this…) and to this day with terrorists, ISIS and the Clintons.
To the extent your argument is “the GOP has lost their way” I disagree: I’m saying their “way” is, and always has been, to identify an enemy and to attack and smear that enemy and anybody who would give aid and comfort to that enemy. The specific ideological points they might use in a particular thrust of the attack are readily abandoned when a different thrust is undertaken. But as long as they can keep people focused on the enemy, the fluidity of their ideology is un-remarked upon… Iran-Contra, if you think about it, is the canonical example: they sold weapons to one avowed enemy to fund the fight against another, in direct contravention of a congressional ban to do anything. Conservative ideology should not conceive of any one of those actions alone, never mind putting them all together in such an unholy melange.
That (i) Trump is a grossly incompetent politician,but is also (ii) actually represents the views of a very significant chunk of the GOP base.
The long term question is, then, whether this white-nationalist part of the party will go back under their rock and listen only for dog-whistles, so that the Chamber of Commerce suburbian voters, who really just don’t want to pay any more taxes and are pissed they can’t buy a 100W light bulb, can pull the R lever, or if the party becomes more explicitly white nationalist, in which case there will be not much there for the Chamber of Commerce types.
The Mark Kirk/Tammy Duckworth debate thing from yesterday also reminded me of former Senator Cleland of Georgia, and the manner in which he was unseated. Cleland is probably a better example because he did not carry the VVAW baggage like Kerry.
I was engaging in some wishful thinking in an effort to be charitable with respect to the existence of honor in the national GOP, and was wrong.
I visited my wife last weekend for my birthday and it was wall to wall negative and misleading ads for that race, the 8th District, the 10th district, and even state rep races.
I give the DuPage Democrats credit, they had direct mail depicting all her local republicans in Dodger uniforms right in time for the NLCS (for supporting the ‘tax-dodging’ Trump).
It’s amazing how nationalized these local races are out there. Mike Madigan makes Bobby DeLeo look like Bobby Kennedy, but all of his lackeys are saying a vote for a Republican is a vote for Trump, while their Republican Governor who makes Charlie Baker look like Charlie Percy is saying a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Mike Madigan. If there is a state that could use a credible socially liberal/fiscally conservative third party, it’s IL. Maybe UIP picked the wrong state to start in 😉
And people buy it every damn time.
I think this is the curse of Mitt Romney. He was elected as a New England Republican, and then had to morph into a severe conservative. To the extent he didn’t shiv the local moderates outright, he completely discredited them. Which made the local GOP into a zombie party, and still makes it all the harder for anyone to overcome that exact campaign tactic by the DeLeos.
I think the difference is that MA is slightly better. There is an actual progressive wing, there are some (12 isn’t a lot but it’s a lot more than 0) folks that vote against the Speaker, and a progressive Senate. And the MA GOP is substantially more moderate.
They wouldn’t nominate an anti-abortion gun nut for statewide office. I voted for one for Attorney General simply because he wasn’t the Speaker’s daughter (IL’s incumbent AG). I voted for really conservative Republicans for state rep and state senate in 2014 simply to block Mike.
I also voted for Pat Quinn.
Much like MA, IL would be well served by a progressive governor and moderate Republican legislature. And like MA, it will never get that combination due to blind party ticket voting and the powerlessness of the local GOP.
…after this election about Trump supporters and how such a large segment of the population in 2016 is willing to swallow his attitude. His positions per se as others have pointed out aren’t completely out of bounds (protectionism, immigration enforcement) though I disagree with both, but the way he disrespects and insults people and his authoritarian tendencies should be. I want this book to be written by a serious psychologist who is not identified politically with a certain side because I really do want to get inside these people’s heads. I truly do not understand the thought processes of such people.
Paul Ryan is one of the biggest frauds in American politics, so I won’t say he doesn’t deserve it but Trump is going after him directly today.
Moments ago:
Earlier this morning:
There’s something you didn’t think you’d see this election. The New York voter is himself going for a right wing third party candidate, but is basically encouraging his swing state listeners to jump ship. He makes the accurate point that if Hillary is elected the conservative movement could work within the political process to defeat her, while that very process itself will be undermined by Trump. Beck has been ostracized by many as a RINO for not supporting Trump, which shows how deep the purge wheel will continue to spin.
on the GOP post-mortem until we have an official president-elect HRC… She’s certainly in a good spot (as a result of him being in a bad spot) but I’m not willing to call a national election three weeks out. She’s a bad front-runner, and vulnerable candidate. The media has a vested interest in keeping Little Hands in this race for as long as possible, and they will. My guess is that this week we see her up in some polls by 12-15 points, and then it gets closer—maybe back down to 6-8 points in her favor. But you just never know what can happen. She needs to close the deal in the last debate and over the next few weeks. How about a compelling, coherent vision of how she’ll govern—positive, uplifting. Come on Hillary! Put him away for good!
I want the loss to be official and severe, but if he drops out now, we can never know what a substitute candidate will do for Republicans, emotionally. Also, By keeping him in the race, it forces all those Republican candidates to face up to and own failing to denounce him upon his nomination. They’ve been trying to have it both ways and now must make a decision. Making a courageous decision when you don’t have to is infinitely more valuable than the worthless one made for you. Kelly Ayotte, can you hear me.
Even if Mr. Trump and the GOP agreed that he should step aside and candidate XXX (Say, for the sake of argument, Mr. Pence) should be the candidate, how would that work?
People have already started voting in (at least!) California, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont, and is set to begin this week or next in a long list of states.
So if my hypothetical plays out, what happens to the votes counted in favor of Trump? What happens to the Mike Pence write-ins? What total is compared to Hillary Clinton’s total? Then, if the not-Clinton total wins, does that mean that those electors are obligated to vote (a) for the candidate who won, (b) for the candidate the GOP picks (in this example, Pence), or (c) for whomever they choose?
Because these details matter if the game plan is
1. Make sure Hillary Clinton receives less than 270 electoral votes
2. Have the House vote
3. ???
4. Profit
then the details of how a state tablulates the GOP-ish votes matters a great deal. The rules governing electoral college votes matters too.
Trump is now positioning himself to the leader of the “Alt-Right”. He’ll still be a leader, #1, the guy, the big celebrity. He will use that position to attack Hillary and her pals for the next four years, and the media will promote it.
When Donald Trump keeps ratcheting up his message, Hillary Clinton can easily dismiss it. The problem is for Republicans who win with under 55%, House and Senate. If they reject Trump again and again, they lose their alt-right voters. If they don’t, they lose white voters who have no more patience for Mr. Trump’s spew.
He is already setting up the board for future bitter complaints about how Crooked Hillary stole the “rigged” election by voter fraud in “those” neighborhoods. Dealing with that toxic soup will be no fun for anyone, Dem or GOP.
Then again, sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof.
The GOP had a post-mortem in 2012, that correctly noted that they lost because they seemed to be a collection of nativists and plutocrats. Then, the nativists in their base torpedoed any attempt to change that, and voted to run a plutocrat.
The people in DC know what’s wrong with the Republican Party. What they won’t/can’t admit is that it’s filled with…Republicans.