Future of the GOP

[Alcibiades]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

[Alcibiades]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

I would add that the 2000s-brand of Republican/evangelical social conservatism is, beyond abortion, also pretty much dead now.

The SoCons/RR spent the best part of the late 90s and noughties championing opposition to gay marriage as their cause célèbre, all to have it end in total and utter failure, with one of the most rapid turnarounds in public opinion on any issue in American history.

[Alcibiades]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

When has Econ Conservatives really ran the party when they take the WH other than maybe the Reagan years. Bush was clearly more Neo-Con/Socially Conservative than he was Economically Conservative and that isnt really close. Heck on Economics Bush was more moderate than Trump has been and its really not even close in that regard .

Your fantasy that the Reagan years were economically conservative have always been an endless fantasy of yours.

Economically they were conservative, in that the GOP looked to shaft the poor and declare open season on the most vulnerable in society. Fiscally they were not, with the huge deficits and all.

[Alcibiades]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

Reagan ignoring the AIDs epidemic was pretty clearly motivated by wanting to keep the Religious Right onside, no? I would argue that had some pretty serious consequences for a lot of gay men.

Although admittedly, that can perhaps be categorised under Reagan’s general callousness towards the marginalised rather than any conviction that AIDs was “God’s punishment for homosexuality” or whatever.

[Alcibiades]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

Reagan ignoring the AIDs epidemic was pretty clearly motivated by wanting to keep the Religious Right onside, no? I would argue that had some pretty serious consequences for a lot of gay men.

I always thought it was moreso the cultural and societal way gay men we’re viewed in the 80s, obviously not really respected in society, so not as much care/attention was given by the government and overall just wasn’t a priority for him, or he didn’t care. It wasn’t necessarily an attempt to galvanize the religious right.

Yeah, I realised that - see my edit shortly before you made this post.