Did the GOP slide begin in the 1990s?

[Scam of God]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

[Scam of God]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

You will likely learn that Republicans are fiscally Conservative........when they are out of power.  As soon as they get into power, they spend like drunken sailors. 

This only happened once, under Bush Jr. when they became arrogant after 10 years of controlling both houses of congress. Reagan shrunk government and Bush Sr. tried to trim the deficit (though he had to raise taxes to do so).

It also happened in the 1990's after Republicans took over.  They realized that they needed earmarks and pork-barrel projects to get their members reelected. 

Yes I have commented on that. But generally the period from 1995-1999 was the first era of fiscally conservative Gov't since the 1920's. From 1995-1999 earmarks went down, welfare was reformed and the annual growth of Gov't spending was reduced. It wasn't untill 1999 that the Republicans completely abandoned fiscal conservativism, and it generally coincides with the rise of two Texans George Bush and Tom Delay. After 1999 we saw the growth of earmarks like never before; the creation of unfounded mandates, Medicare Part D; and Government Agencies, Homeland Security. What I am hopefull of is the return to the ideals and core beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be, and have that determine the strength or weakness of our candidates not how much they can bribe there constituents.

My hope is for the Republicans to be in there mid 1990's form when they retake congress and not some corrupt, pseudo-populist socially conservative hybrid whose only existence is to further the interests of the incumbents and achieve no real reforms except those that beef up the poll numbers for next election. Its amazing that 30 years into the modern Conservative movement we have only squeezed out four years of reasonable fiscal conservativism.

I'm sure they will. It is in their electoral interests. After all, last time they abandoned their promises of fiscal responsibility and small government, they were slaughtered (2008).

They abandoned those promises in 2002 and 2004 and did fine those years. 

Thats what I have been trying to tell you. The reason they did fine those years is
A. Earmarks do help reelection bids
B. People cared more about physical then Finacial security.

The whole idea of abandoning fiscal conservatisim was for short-term electoral gain but thinking short term only comes back to bight you in the end. Out of control spending was one issue in 2006 that the GOP could have avoided, corruption was another big one that could easily have been avoided. But they didn't, they chose short term gain in return for long term consequences.

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

[Scam of God]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

[Scam of God]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

[Scam of God]

Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. .

These positions are fundamentally incompatible with any form of libertarianism. Continue to keep them and, ipso facto, the Republicans are not the party of 'moderate libertarianism'.

[Scam of God]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

Don't look just at the Republican primaries, look at the rhetoric in congress. Anti-spending, anti-big government, pro-free market, and they have softened their tone on foreign policy (though they could do better), and social issues are taking a back seat, these all indicate they're moving in a libertarian direction.

Why? I don't give a damn what a political base says; I care about what they do. And Huckabee roundly won the "up-and-coming" Millennial Republican generation. The temporary rhetoric of job-seekers left over from the '94 Revolution is less-than-meaningless when trying to analyze medium-long term trends. 

[Scam of God]

I think you give Reagan too much credit. His understanding of "personal freedoms" is almost Orwellian in its lack of correlation to the real meaning of the phrase.

[Scam of God]

I think you give Reagan too much credit. His understanding of "personal freedoms" is almost Orwellian in its lack of correlation to the real meaning of the phrase.

There's a good bit in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot where Al Franken relates how, in 1975, Reagan declared his opposition to mandatory motorcycle helmets because it was "an infringement on personal liberty"... and later the same day stated his opposition to decriminalizing marijuana because it "causes brain damage." Par for the course with Republicans.

The day will come - and soon - when the Republicans no longer co-opt the language of liberty to dupe genuinely well-meaning people into supporting their Statist policies. What's left for you to do is to make sure there's a Party that can accommodate them when that happens.

[Scam of God]

Living in California for many generations, I remember when Reagan was Governor and the first Governor in the USA to sign on to Roe v Wade.  A group of my friends took a bus from the San Fernando Valley to Sacrament to give him a standing ovation.  You see, I knew the Reagans and heard them speak on individual freedoms.  They wanted no part of the Federal or State Government in their personal social lives.  That is what I meant when the platform called for individual freedoms.  It is no longer the case.  Our individual freedoms have been labeled sins and the religious right wants us all to accept the faith and be made clean.  This I cannot do and refuse to even discuss it. 

I have no political party and to be honest about it; it is killing my political spirit.  I have nothing to work for or look forward to.  I am old, cranky and tired. 

I do feel for your position, being without a party. However I must disagree in that I find limited Gov't is impossible w/o some sort of social control. Either you have an overbearing Gov't or a strict traditionalist society governed by moral values. The altenative is in my view anarchy.

This is the difference between the libertarian and the Republican philosophy: the libertarian, an individualist, understands intuitively that the individual it not a horse; he can be trusted generally to run in whatever direction he wants without going out too far and breaking down the fence, because most people have the basic psychological faculties that will prevent them from going out too far. The Republican, on the other hand, because he is the slave of superstition and mythology, treats the individual more like a cow, who has to be corralled at every which way.

Furthermore, the Republican's so-called 'need to prevent anarchy' is quite selective. Abortion leads to anarchy? Gay marriage leads to anarchy? Drug use leads to anarchy? And yet - and yet being against all these things does not? How, now? As far as I understand, anarchy is a state in which one individual can force himself on others, either physically or metaphorically, without being prevented from doing so. Everytime the Republican gets his way on social issues, that's exactly what happens.