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

[darklordoftech]

Democrats only: Who do you think is most responsible for today's political problems?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Fox News is probably more responsible than anyone for the GOP going far to right.


But if you wanna blame anyone its Nixon and Gingrich, Gingrich for the hyper-partisan attitude , Nixon for creating a Suburbs+Interior West + Sunbelt Coalition which allowed the GOP to win without the North East and Urban Areas and once that happened it was inevitable for the GOP to move away from Rockefellerism towards Reaganism.


Heres my analysis of this:

Reagan type Republicans taking over the party was inevitable as the Reason Rockefeller Republicans dominated the GOP in the first place from 1940-1976 was that in that period the North East,  and Urban Areas was basically the Geographical Area that dominated politics in the country in that period(due to the South being a one-party state, and the Suburbs being not that influential ) .That's the reason why the GOP was so moderate because they had to be to win areas they needed to win elections.

The 1968 Election basically showed that the GOP no longer needed the North East or Urban Areas to win elections, as the Suburbs + Sunbelt coalition was more than enough to give the GOP a majority in the electoral college and by the 1970s that coalition was on the ascendant which meant the GOP no longer had to rely on picking off areas and voters from the old New Deal Coalition in the North East and Urban Areas to win elections. The Sunbelt and the Suburbs were also significantly more conservative than the North East and Urban Areas and since that was the coalition on the ascendant it was inevitable that the GOP was going to become significantly more conservative.

Lastly in 1979 the vast majority of the GOP establishment supported Reagan in the primaries and not HW (Reagan had 90% of the endorsements which were given out in 1979: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-is-just-like-reagan-in-1980-expect-people-actually-liked-reagan/)

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[junior chįmp]

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

[darklordoftech]

I feel like economic and foreign policy were the things that Reagan was passionate about and what drove his desire to be President and he social issues as a way to get votes for himself and Republicans in general.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I feel like economic and foreign policy were the things that Reagan was passionate about and what drove his desire to be President and he social issues as a way to get votes for himself and Republicans in general.

Well in 1980 he still talked considerably more about economic issues and foreign policy than social issues .

[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.

[Mr. Smith]

Goldwater seeded the terrible ideology that dominates discourse

Nixon allowed "muh small government" to actually be plausible thanks to Watergate

But Reagan put all of it together and made it last.

[darklordoftech]

Goldwater seeded the terrible ideology that dominates discourse

Nixon allowed "muh small government" to actually be plausible thanks to Watergate

But Reagan put all of it together and made it last.

Reagan did seem to combine the worst aspects of Goldwater (inability to distinguish entitlements and social justice from communism) and Nixon (belief in a strong executive and a police state). Watergate was caused by a strong executive, not by "big government".