Dems: Who do you think is the worst thing to happen to present-day politics?

[dw93]

Reagan and Gingrich. You could throw Nixon in there for the Southern Strategy, but the Democratic grip on the south was already broken in 1964 with Goldwater and while Nixon pandered to them, Nixon never had any intention of giving the Reaganites and the Religious Right any influence or power in the party. Reagan emboldened and empowered the worst parts of the electorate and Gingrich brought about an era of hyperpartisanship and polarization.

[dw93]

Reagan and Gingrich. You could throw Nixon in there for the Southern Strategy, but the Democratic grip on the south was already broken in 1964 with Goldwater and while Nixon pandered to them, Nixon never had any intention of giving the Reaganites and the Religious Right any influence or power in the party. Reagan emboldened and empowered the worst parts of the electorate and Gingrich brought about an era of hyperpartisanship and polarization.

Once he created that coalition though it was inevitable it would happen.

I disagree. Let's say Reagan won the nomination in 1976, lost the general to Carter (contrary to what some believe, I don't think Reagan could win in '76), and a more moderate Republican (Bush, Baker, take your pick) got nominated and beat Carter in 1980. I don't think the far right (economic or social)would  have as much sway over said administration as they did with Reagan's. Even if someone like Jack Kemp had been nominated, supply siders would've been emboldened, but I don't think the Religious right would. Granted, we still would've moved somewhat right socially coming off of the 60's and 70's, but it wouldn't be as hard of a shift and the effects wouldn't be lasting.

[dw93]

Reagan and Gingrich. You could throw Nixon in there for the Southern Strategy, but the Democratic grip on the south was already broken in 1964 with Goldwater and while Nixon pandered to them, Nixon never had any intention of giving the Reaganites and the Religious Right any influence or power in the party. Reagan emboldened and empowered the worst parts of the electorate and Gingrich brought about an era of hyperpartisanship and polarization.

Once he created that coalition though it was inevitable it would happen.

I disagree. Let's say Reagan won the nomination in 1976, lost the general to Carter (contrary to what some believe, I don't think Reagan could win in '76), and a more moderate Republican (Bush, Baker, take your pick) got nominated and beat Carter in 1980. I don't think the far right (economic or social)would  have as much sway over said administration as they did with Reagan's. Even if someone like Jack Kemp had been nominated, supply siders would've been emboldened, but I don't think the Religious right would. Granted, we still would've moved somewhat right socially coming off of the 60's and 70's, but it wouldn't be as hard of a shift and the effects wouldn't be lasting.

Reagan pretty much didnt do anything policy wise which the religious right would like other than Mexico city policy(which even if you dont support the religious right you can support that policy). He appointed two pro Roe vs Wade judges as well.

It was the Republican Revolution in 1994 which really propelled them to power.

They were loud and proud before 1994. Pat Buchanan's primary challenge and Culture War Speech, as well as Pat Robertson's Presidential run all happened before the Republican Revolution, but likely wouldn't have happened at all, or at least not had much if any impact, prior to 1980.

[dw93]

Reagan and Gingrich. You could throw Nixon in there for the Southern Strategy, but the Democratic grip on the south was already broken in 1964 with Goldwater and while Nixon pandered to them, Nixon never had any intention of giving the Reaganites and the Religious Right any influence or power in the party. Reagan emboldened and empowered the worst parts of the electorate and Gingrich brought about an era of hyperpartisanship and polarization.

Once he created that coalition though it was inevitable it would happen.

I disagree. Let's say Reagan won the nomination in 1976, lost the general to Carter (contrary to what some believe, I don't think Reagan could win in '76), and a more moderate Republican (Bush, Baker, take your pick) got nominated and beat Carter in 1980. I don't think the far right (economic or social)would  have as much sway over said administration as they did with Reagan's. Even if someone like Jack Kemp had been nominated, supply siders would've been emboldened, but I don't think the Religious right would. Granted, we still would've moved somewhat right socially coming off of the 60's and 70's, but it wouldn't be as hard of a shift and the effects wouldn't be lasting.

Reagan pretty much didnt do anything policy wise which the religious right would like other than Mexico city policy(which even if you dont support the religious right you can support that policy). He appointed two pro Roe vs Wade judges as well.

It was the Republican Revolution in 1994 which really propelled them to power.

They were loud and proud before 1994. Pat Buchanan's primary challenge and Culture War Speech, as well as Pat Robertson's Presidential run all happened before the Republican Revolution, but likely wouldn't have happened at all, or at least not had much if any impact, prior to 1980.

The thing is Reagan talked about social issues the least


He mostly talked about Economics Issues and Foreign Policy

His themes from 1980 , 1984 and his entire Presidency were these

- Taxes are too high

-too many Regulations are hurting the economy

- Peace Through Strength


Only times he really brought up god was when he would explain why Communism is wrong even from a religous standpoint and same with taxes and regulations.Also Pat Robertson and Buchanan got destroyed in 88 and 92

Robertson won four states and 9% of the vote in 1988 and placed second after Bob Dole in Iowa, and was allowed to speak at the Convention. With Buchanan, while he didn't win any caucuses or primaries, he gave Bush a run for his money in New Hampshire and won 23% of the vote nationally, and damaged Bush for the general election. Then their was the  Culture War Speech, which was arguably what drove (or at least had a hand in driving) WASPy New England Moderate Republicans away from the party that year (and in many cases beyond 1992). Yes I agree with you that Reagan's priorities were more economic and defense related, with that said however, he still gave the far right a loud voice in the party and gave them a good deal of sway and influence in his administration.