The GOP needs to become more economically liberal

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Many have embraced socialism whether they believe it or not. They basically voted for Trump so the government could insure their dying coal jobs and others.

MasterJedi, the process of creative destruction has alienated millions of people and not just coal workers. And it is not as if limited gov't Republicans and libertarians have been willing to aid in the transition.

Most of these people want to work and took pride in earning a living. The system failed them, the system turned working "middle" class people into white trash. Why is there fault that they have opted to seek an alternative to the political establishment that has failed them? That is how democracy works.

If you don't want crazies tapping into that anger, than the establishment has to incorporate and address those concerns. Putting all ones eggs into the basking of pretending they aren't a problem, is the surest way to get more Trump's elected going forward.

I seem to recall you were once a Huckabee supporter, correct? And as I recall my reaction was that he was "too populist".

[MasterJedi]

Many have embraced socialism whether they believe it or not. They basically voted for Trump so the government could insure their dying coal jobs and others.

MasterJedi, the process of creative destruction has alienated millions of people and not just coal workers. And it is not as if limited gov't Republicans and libertarians have been willing to aid in the transition.

Most of these people want to work and took pride in earning a living. The system failed them, the system turned working "middle" class people into white trash. Why is there fault that they have opted to seek an alternative to the political establishment that has failed them? That is how democracy works.

If you don't want crazies tapping into that anger, than the establishment has to incorporate and address those concerns. Putting all ones eggs into the basking of pretending they aren't a problem, is the surest way to get more Trump's elected going forward.

I seem to recall you were once a Huckabee supporter, correct? And as I recall my reaction was that he was "too populist".

It's just amusing how all these people hate socialism and the "libtards" but want the gubment to give them a job in perpetuity. They are basically socialists whether they believe it or not.

I never necessarily supported Huckabee, I thought he might not be too bad for 2016, then they all went crazy in the interim from when he ran in 08.

[RINO Tom]

Technocratic Timmy nails it. The Republican Party will become a more liberal party in time on both social and economic policies but it will require a strong majoritarian Democratic Party that basically forces the Republican Party to quit being a faux populist party and become a real one. The current Republican coalition is made up of too many beneficiaries of neoliberal policies to change the fundamental course of the Party sans realignment.

We are in the beginning stages of a massive realignment.

I think the future of the GOP is a coalition that bridges the gap between Trump style populists and suburban moderates and is primarily centered in the Midwest. But that only comes about in the late 2020's at the earliest. The transition from here to there is going to be awful and not just for Republicans either.

I don't think anyone wants this, I certainly don't. But I think this is what people are going to get.

I'm sure you have a smarter answer than I would, but what makes you so sure "Trump style populists" - who weren't organized before Trump and have more or less demonstrated that their loyalty is CERTAINLY stronger to Trump than any coherent ideology, as they support literally everything he does and are more fans of "what he represents" (?) than anything else, it seems - can 1) continue to have a candidate like Trump who can fire them up and 2) continue to be a significant enough voting bloc 10, 20 and 30 years from now that they are dictating where Republican policy goes in a significantly more influential way than Millenial Republicans?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Technocratic Timmy nails it. The Republican Party will become a more liberal party in time on both social and economic policies but it will require a strong majoritarian Democratic Party that basically forces the Republican Party to quit being a faux populist party and become a real one. The current Republican coalition is made up of too many beneficiaries of neoliberal policies to change the fundamental course of the Party sans realignment.

We are in the beginning stages of a massive realignment.

I think the future of the GOP is a coalition that bridges the gap between Trump style populists and suburban moderates and is primarily centered in the Midwest. But that only comes about in the late 2020's at the earliest. The transition from here to there is going to be awful and not just for Republicans either.

I don't think anyone wants this, I certainly don't. But I think this is what people are going to get.

I'm sure you have a smarter answer than I would, but what makes you so sure "Trump style populists" - who weren't organized before Trump and have more or less demonstrated that their loyalty is CERTAINLY stronger to Trump than any coherent ideology, as they support literally everything he does and are more fans of "what he represents" (?) than anything else, it seems - can 1) continue to have a candidate like Trump who can fire them up and 2) continue to be a significant enough voting bloc 10, 20 and 30 years from now that they are dictating where Republican policy goes in a significantly more influential way than Millenial Republicans?

On the contrary, I think Millenial Republicans are going to further this, because they are the ones who will eventually lead this.

I don't think Trump created this. This was created "for" Trump, by the years of actions by the GOP establishment and government policies over the past 30 years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Technocratic Timmy nails it. The Republican Party will become a more liberal party in time on both social and economic policies but it will require a strong majoritarian Democratic Party that basically forces the Republican Party to quit being a faux populist party and become a real one. The current Republican coalition is made up of too many beneficiaries of neoliberal policies to change the fundamental course of the Party sans realignment.

We are in the beginning stages of a massive realignment.

I think the future of the GOP is a coalition that bridges the gap between Trump style populists and suburban moderates and is primarily centered in the Midwest. But that only comes about in the late 2020's at the earliest. The transition from here to there is going to be awful and not just for Republicans either.

I don't think anyone wants this, I certainly don't. But I think this is what people are going to get.

I'm sure you have a smarter answer than I would, but what makes you so sure "Trump style populists" - who weren't organized before Trump and have more or less demonstrated that their loyalty is CERTAINLY stronger to Trump than any coherent ideology, as they support literally everything he does and are more fans of "what he represents" (?) than anything else, it seems - can 1) continue to have a candidate like Trump who can fire them up and 2) continue to be a significant enough voting bloc 10, 20 and 30 years from now that they are dictating where Republican policy goes in a significantly more influential way than Millenial Republicans?

You have a point on ideological incoherence of Trumpism, but I think the short answer is that Trumpism (whatever that is) proved to be what Republicans needed to finally break through in the Midwest. Neoliberalism certainly wasn't and isn't the answer to winning the region. So I think it would make intuitive sense that Republican candidates in the future would be more of a Trump mold than a Romney mold in terms of ideology if they want to win the White House. Neoliberalism might stave off the Dems eventually flipping places like Georgia and the rest of the Sun belt a while longer, but that doesn't put you close to winning without the Midwest.

Remember Romney ran as a proto-Trumpist in 2008 and in the primaries in 2011/2012.

I think that is what is going to happen in the future. "Acceptably" establishment candidates are going to run like Romney in both experience and temperament, but instead of becoming a generic Reaganist Republican for the general like Romney did, continuing the populist elements in the general and ultimately while in office. Romney did all the things he would have needed to do, to have a similar midwest appeal, just not in the 2012 general election where it mattered.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Technocratic Timmy nails it. The Republican Party will become a more liberal party in time on both social and economic policies but it will require a strong majoritarian Democratic Party that basically forces the Republican Party to quit being a faux populist party and become a real one. The current Republican coalition is made up of too many beneficiaries of neoliberal policies to change the fundamental course of the Party sans realignment.

We are in the beginning stages of a massive realignment.

I think the future of the GOP is a coalition that bridges the gap between Trump style populists and suburban moderates and is primarily centered in the Midwest. But that only comes about in the late 2020's at the earliest. The transition from here to there is going to be awful and not just for Republicans either.

I don't think anyone wants this, I certainly don't. But I think this is what people are going to get.

I'm sure you have a smarter answer than I would, but what makes you so sure "Trump style populists" - who weren't organized before Trump and have more or less demonstrated that their loyalty is CERTAINLY stronger to Trump than any coherent ideology, as they support literally everything he does and are more fans of "what he represents" (?) than anything else, it seems - can 1) continue to have a candidate like Trump who can fire them up and 2) continue to be a significant enough voting bloc 10, 20 and 30 years from now that they are dictating where Republican policy goes in a significantly more influential way than Millenial Republicans?

You have a point on ideological incoherence of Trumpism, but I think the short answer is that Trumpism (whatever that is) proved to be what Republicans needed to finally break through in the Midwest. Neoliberalism certainly wasn't and isn't the answer to winning the region. So I think it would make intuitive sense that Republican candidates in the future would be more of a Trump mold than a Romney mold in terms of ideology if they want to win the White House. Neoliberalism might stave off the Dems eventually flipping places like Georgia and the rest of the Sun belt a while longer, but that doesn't put you close to winning without the Midwest.

Well in terms of incoherence, the Republicans haven't been too concerned about that, especially since they have gone hardcore on both social and economic issues. It is hard to promote hardcore creative destruction, with no mitigating instruments, and family values/faith based solutions at the same time.

The disruptive nature of the former, breaks up families, friends, neighborhoods and churches, causing the very societal breakdown, decline in religious affiliation and alienation among the youth that has lost the culture war in part for the social conservatives. Ironically, it has created more socialists. In fact, I would argue that the hardcore embrace of neoliberal trade policies and simultaneously reflexive opposition to gov't involvement, has done more to create these socialists than Trump, who created next to nothing. You might even say, "You didn't build that".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Many have embraced socialism whether they believe it or not. They basically voted for Trump so the government could insure their dying coal jobs and others.

MasterJedi, the process of creative destruction has alienated millions of people and not just coal workers. And it is not as if limited gov't Republicans and libertarians have been willing to aid in the transition.

Most of these people want to work and took pride in earning a living. The system failed them, the system turned working "middle" class people into white trash. Why is there fault that they have opted to seek an alternative to the political establishment that has failed them? That is how democracy works.

If you don't want crazies tapping into that anger, than the establishment has to incorporate and address those concerns. Putting all ones eggs into the basking of pretending they aren't a problem, is the surest way to get more Trump's elected going forward.

I seem to recall you were once a Huckabee supporter, correct? And as I recall my reaction was that he was "too populist".

It's just amusing how all these people hate socialism and the "libtards" but want the gubment to give them a job in perpetuity. They are basically socialists whether they believe it or not.

I never necessarily supported Huckabee, I thought he might not be too bad for 2016, then they all went crazy in the interim from when he ran in 08.

Are all economic moderates socialist? You seem to be embracing a rather libertarian definition of socialism, which I must say is ironic considering your history with libertarians.

He was your second choice after Walker. As I recall he was pretty nuts in 2008 too, but when it was all about the sales tax and being pro-life since rocks cooled unlike that flip flopper Willard Mittens Romney, was all that really mattered. Huckabee had a record of going so far as to "RAISE TAXES" to close a budget deficit. The horror!

There is no such thing as an ideologically "anti-gov't" voter. There is a collection of interests and some voters who want gov't reduce in one aspect of their lives or another. But it is not across the board. Reaganists have long supported increasing defense spending for example.

It is not so much that the incoherence has been created, it has been for decades. It is just more overt and on different areas.

The irony is that it took a chronic liar like Trump to illustrate that the GOP have been chronic liars on smaller government all along, at least from a purist perspective.
 

[MasterJedi]

Many have embraced socialism whether they believe it or not. They basically voted for Trump so the government could insure their dying coal jobs and others.

MasterJedi, the process of creative destruction has alienated millions of people and not just coal workers. And it is not as if limited gov't Republicans and libertarians have been willing to aid in the transition.

Most of these people want to work and took pride in earning a living. The system failed them, the system turned working "middle" class people into white trash. Why is there fault that they have opted to seek an alternative to the political establishment that has failed them? That is how democracy works.

If you don't want crazies tapping into that anger, than the establishment has to incorporate and address those concerns. Putting all ones eggs into the basking of pretending they aren't a problem, is the surest way to get more Trump's elected going forward.

I seem to recall you were once a Huckabee supporter, correct? And as I recall my reaction was that he was "too populist".

It's just amusing how all these people hate socialism and the "libtards" but want the gubment to give them a job in perpetuity. They are basically socialists whether they believe it or not.

I never necessarily supported Huckabee, I thought he might not be too bad for 2016, then they all went crazy in the interim from when he ran in 08.

Are all economic moderates socialist? You seem to be embracing a rather libertarian definition of socialism, which I must say is ironic considering your history with libertarians.

He was your second choice after Walker. As I recall he was pretty nuts in 2008 too, but when it was all about the sales tax and being pro-life since rocks cooled unlike that flip flopper Willard Mittens Romney, was all that really mattered. Huckabee had a record of going so far as to "RAISE TAXES" to close a budget deficit. The horror!

There is no such thing as an ideologically "anti-gov't" voter. There is a collection of interests and some voters who want gov't reduce in one aspect of their lives or another. But it is not across the board. Reaganists have long supported increasing defense spending for example.

It is not so much that the incoherence has been created, it has been for decades. It is just more overt and on different areas.

The irony is that it took a chronic liar like Trump to illustrate that the GOP have been chronic liars on smaller government all along, at least from a purist perspective.
 

In 08 I was fully behind McCain but see how much can change between 08 and even 12 and 17!?!?!?! I'd probably say I'm much more moderate now, basically been hell to be a moderate conservative from both sides, and the old man white moron vote in suburban WI is strong. They'll vote to slit their own throats instead of actual sane policies. "Cut our taxes now! And then, why are my roads not fixed? Cut my taxes more and eliminate all the school funding and welfare to fix ma roads!'.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Many have embraced socialism whether they believe it or not. They basically voted for Trump so the government could insure their dying coal jobs and others.

MasterJedi, the process of creative destruction has alienated millions of people and not just coal workers. And it is not as if limited gov't Republicans and libertarians have been willing to aid in the transition.

Most of these people want to work and took pride in earning a living. The system failed them, the system turned working "middle" class people into white trash. Why is there fault that they have opted to seek an alternative to the political establishment that has failed them? That is how democracy works.

If you don't want crazies tapping into that anger, than the establishment has to incorporate and address those concerns. Putting all ones eggs into the basking of pretending they aren't a problem, is the surest way to get more Trump's elected going forward.

I seem to recall you were once a Huckabee supporter, correct? And as I recall my reaction was that he was "too populist".

It's just amusing how all these people hate socialism and the "libtards" but want the gubment to give them a job in perpetuity. They are basically socialists whether they believe it or not.

I never necessarily supported Huckabee, I thought he might not be too bad for 2016, then they all went crazy in the interim from when he ran in 08.

Are all economic moderates socialist? You seem to be embracing a rather libertarian definition of socialism, which I must say is ironic considering your history with libertarians.

He was your second choice after Walker. As I recall he was pretty nuts in 2008 too, but when it was all about the sales tax and being pro-life since rocks cooled unlike that flip flopper Willard Mittens Romney, was all that really mattered. Huckabee had a record of going so far as to "RAISE TAXES" to close a budget deficit. The horror!

There is no such thing as an ideologically "anti-gov't" voter. There is a collection of interests and some voters who want gov't reduce in one aspect of their lives or another. But it is not across the board. Reaganists have long supported increasing defense spending for example.

It is not so much that the incoherence has been created, it has been for decades. It is just more overt and on different areas.

The irony is that it took a chronic liar like Trump to illustrate that the GOP have been chronic liars on smaller government all along, at least from a purist perspective.
 

In 08 I was fully behind McCain but see how much can change between 08 and even 12 and 17!?!?!?! I'd probably say I'm much more moderate now, basically been hell to be a moderate conservative from both sides, and the old man white moron vote in suburban WI is strong. They'll vote to slit their own throats instead of actual sane policies. "Cut our taxes now! And then, why are my roads not fixed? Cut my taxes more and eliminate all the school funding and welfare to fix ma roads!'.

I don't think we are that far apart on issues or even the downright cynicism.

If Huckabee had been more socially moderate and had managed to get the nomination, I am now of the opinion he might even have been able to do the impossible and win 2008.

Irrational purity is going to destroy the Republican Party and this particular one, taxes, is so embedded in the establishment and think tank DC bubble that there is no dislodging it short of a populist revolution against the GOP establishment.

[RINO Tom]

Many have embraced socialism whether they believe it or not. They basically voted for Trump so the government could insure their dying coal jobs and others.

MasterJedi, the process of creative destruction has alienated millions of people and not just coal workers. And it is not as if limited gov't Republicans and libertarians have been willing to aid in the transition.

Most of these people want to work and took pride in earning a living. The system failed them, the system turned working "middle" class people into white trash. Why is there fault that they have opted to seek an alternative to the political establishment that has failed them? That is how democracy works.

If you don't want crazies tapping into that anger, than the establishment has to incorporate and address those concerns. Putting all ones eggs into the basking of pretending they aren't a problem, is the surest way to get more Trump's elected going forward.

I seem to recall you were once a Huckabee supporter, correct? And as I recall my reaction was that he was "too populist".

It's just amusing how all these people hate socialism and the "libtards" but want the gubment to give them a job in perpetuity. They are basically socialists whether they believe it or not.

I never necessarily supported Huckabee, I thought he might not be too bad for 2016, then they all went crazy in the interim from when he ran in 08.

Are all economic moderates socialist? You seem to be embracing a rather libertarian definition of socialism, which I must say is ironic considering your history with libertarians.

He was your second choice after Walker. As I recall he was pretty nuts in 2008 too, but when it was all about the sales tax and being pro-life since rocks cooled unlike that flip flopper Willard Mittens Romney, was all that really mattered. Huckabee had a record of going so far as to "RAISE TAXES" to close a budget deficit. The horror!

There is no such thing as an ideologically "anti-gov't" voter. There is a collection of interests and some voters who want gov't reduce in one aspect of their lives or another. But it is not across the board. Reaganists have long supported increasing defense spending for example.

It is not so much that the incoherence has been created, it has been for decades. It is just more overt and on different areas.

The irony is that it took a chronic liar like Trump to illustrate that the GOP have been chronic liars on smaller government all along, at least from a purist perspective.
 

In 08 I was fully behind McCain but see how much can change between 08 and even 12 and 17!?!?!?! I'd probably say I'm much more moderate now, basically been hell to be a moderate conservative from both sides, and the old man white moron vote in suburban WI is strong. They'll vote to slit their own throats instead of actual sane policies. "Cut our taxes now! And then, why are my roads not fixed? Cut my taxes more and eliminate all the school funding and welfare to fix ma roads!'.

I don't think we are that far apart on issues or even the downright cynicism.

If Huckabee had been more socially moderate and had managed to get the nomination, I am now of the opinion he might even have been able to do the impossible and win 2008.

Irrational purity is going to destroy the Republican Party and this particular one, taxes, is so embedded in the establishment and think tank DC bubble that there is no dislodging it short of a populist revolution against the GOP establishment.

"Purity" is a problem for attitude and persona, as well.  Trading ideological purity (which needed to go) for "nationalism purity" (or whatever you want to call Trump's rabid base's downright hatred of ... well ... their party) is going to be just as distructive.  If "Trumpist" voters are more flexible on policy and allow the GOP to moderate on the issues but are just as demanding that Republicans sound as nationalist and brash as possible, we have the same problem.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Many have embraced socialism whether they believe it or not. They basically voted for Trump so the government could insure their dying coal jobs and others.

MasterJedi, the process of creative destruction has alienated millions of people and not just coal workers. And it is not as if limited gov't Republicans and libertarians have been willing to aid in the transition.

Most of these people want to work and took pride in earning a living. The system failed them, the system turned working "middle" class people into white trash. Why is there fault that they have opted to seek an alternative to the political establishment that has failed them? That is how democracy works.

If you don't want crazies tapping into that anger, than the establishment has to incorporate and address those concerns. Putting all ones eggs into the basking of pretending they aren't a problem, is the surest way to get more Trump's elected going forward.

I seem to recall you were once a Huckabee supporter, correct? And as I recall my reaction was that he was "too populist".

It's just amusing how all these people hate socialism and the "libtards" but want the gubment to give them a job in perpetuity. They are basically socialists whether they believe it or not.

I never necessarily supported Huckabee, I thought he might not be too bad for 2016, then they all went crazy in the interim from when he ran in 08.

Are all economic moderates socialist? You seem to be embracing a rather libertarian definition of socialism, which I must say is ironic considering your history with libertarians.

He was your second choice after Walker. As I recall he was pretty nuts in 2008 too, but when it was all about the sales tax and being pro-life since rocks cooled unlike that flip flopper Willard Mittens Romney, was all that really mattered. Huckabee had a record of going so far as to "RAISE TAXES" to close a budget deficit. The horror!

There is no such thing as an ideologically "anti-gov't" voter. There is a collection of interests and some voters who want gov't reduce in one aspect of their lives or another. But it is not across the board. Reaganists have long supported increasing defense spending for example.

It is not so much that the incoherence has been created, it has been for decades. It is just more overt and on different areas.

The irony is that it took a chronic liar like Trump to illustrate that the GOP have been chronic liars on smaller government all along, at least from a purist perspective.
 

In 08 I was fully behind McCain but see how much can change between 08 and even 12 and 17!?!?!?! I'd probably say I'm much more moderate now, basically been hell to be a moderate conservative from both sides, and the old man white moron vote in suburban WI is strong. They'll vote to slit their own throats instead of actual sane policies. "Cut our taxes now! And then, why are my roads not fixed? Cut my taxes more and eliminate all the school funding and welfare to fix ma roads!'.

I don't think we are that far apart on issues or even the downright cynicism.

If Huckabee had been more socially moderate and had managed to get the nomination, I am now of the opinion he might even have been able to do the impossible and win 2008.

Irrational purity is going to destroy the Republican Party and this particular one, taxes, is so embedded in the establishment and think tank DC bubble that there is no dislodging it short of a populist revolution against the GOP establishment.

"Purity" is a problem for attitude and persona, as well.  Trading ideological purity (which needed to go) for "nationalism purity" (or whatever you want to call Trump's rabid base's downright hatred of ... well ... their party) is going to be just as distructive.  If "Trumpist" voters are more flexible on policy and allow the GOP to moderate on the issues but are just as demanding that Republicans sound as nationalist and brash as possible, we have the same problem.

Sometimes you have ride a dirty trolley, to get you where you want to go.

[The_Doctor]

Technocratic Timmy nails it. The Republican Party will become a more liberal party in time on both social and economic policies but it will require a strong majoritarian Democratic Party that basically forces the Republican Party to quit being a faux populist party and become a real one. The current Republican coalition is made up of too many beneficiaries of neoliberal policies to change the fundamental course of the Party sans realignment.

We are in the beginning stages of a massive realignment.

I think the future of the GOP is a coalition that bridges the gap between Trump style populists and suburban moderates and is primarily centered in the Midwest. But that only comes about in the late 2020's at the earliest. The transition from here to there is going to be awful and not just for Republicans either.

I don't think anyone wants this, I certainly don't. But I think this is what people are going to get.

The problem is that such a coalition will be the result of a strong Democratic victory in the 2020s (or two or three). The transition requires neoliberal Republicans to become a minority within the party or to significantly change their ideology and the Republicans to create a coherent conservative ideology for the times.

The Reagan coalition will not cede power without a fight ie they won't let go of the prevailing Republican dogma. They dominate Republican ideology and share an uneasy truce with Trumpist populist nationalism. Realignment towards the Democrats and the Reaganite vision being replaced will be what does it.

[hopper]

Technocratic Timmy nails it. The Republican Party will become a more liberal party in time on both social and economic policies but it will require a strong majoritarian Democratic Party that basically forces the Republican Party to quit being a faux populist party and become a real one. The current Republican coalition is made up of too many beneficiaries of neoliberal policies to change the fundamental course of the Party sans realignment.

We are in the beginning stages of a massive realignment.

I think the future of the GOP is a coalition that bridges the gap between Trump style populists and suburban moderates and is primarily centered in the Midwest. But that only comes about in the late 2020's at the earliest. The transition from here to there is going to be awful and not just for Republicans either.

I don't think anyone wants this, I certainly don't. But I think this is what people are going to get.

I'm sure you have a smarter answer than I would, but what makes you so sure "Trump style populists" - who weren't organized before Trump and have more or less demonstrated that their loyalty is CERTAINLY stronger to Trump than any coherent ideology, as they support literally everything he does and are more fans of "what he represents" (?) than anything else, it seems - can 1) continue to have a candidate like Trump who can fire them up and 2) continue to be a significant enough voting bloc 10, 20 and 30 years from now that they are dictating where Republican policy goes in a significantly more influential way than Millenial Republicans?

On the contrary, I think Millenial Republicans are going to further this, because they are the ones who will eventually lead this.

I don't think Trump created this. This was created "for" Trump, by the years of actions by the GOP establishment and government policies over the past 30 years.

Both Parties Establishment(s)