Check out excerpts from this 90s book on conservatism

[Virginiá]

I got the tweet thread from another tweet thread linked from Vox:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/13/17683416/trump-republican-party-conservatives-seth-cotlar

This is the excerpts tweet thread. She is posting from a 1995 book about conservatism yet it might as well be describing 2018 down to the last detail:

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Right-Challenging-Wing-Backlash/dp/0896085236

https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev/status/1026201562174111745

Some of them:








When people say the seeds for Trump were planted long ago, they really were right on the money.

[Virginiá]

Moderate Democrats to the left: Please, we need to come together and strive for bipartisanship with the right:

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

[Yank2133]

That book is pretty spot on. Although I would like to add that the complete failure of the Bush Administration played a significant role in the rise of Trump. Establishment Republicans were discredited and Trump ran against them in the primaries as much as he did Obama.  

[OSR stands with Israel]

That book is pretty spot on. Although I would like to add that the complete failure of the Bush Administration played a significant role in the rise of Trump. Establishment Republicans were discredited and Trump ran against them in the primaries as much as he did Obama.  

I would definitely say the failures of the Bush years had more to the rise of Trump than anything else really

[Badger]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

And the practical difference then, let alone today, is?

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

And the practical difference then, let alone today, is?

Bringing up David Duke is complete and utter BS since the GOP disowned him and endorsed the Dem

[Kingpoleon]

This reads like if Dinesh D’Souza was a Democrat.

[Badger]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

And the practical difference then, let alone today, is?

Bringing up David Duke is complete and utter BS since the GOP disowned him and endorsed the Dem

1) There are references to Pat Robertson and the Southern Strategy. Disowning David Duke is fine, but how does that one example undermine the rest of the book's hypothesis?

2) It's pretty tough to raise Duke as a defense when Trump has repeatedly refused to disown him over the last 2 years.

[MAINEiac4434]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

There’s no difference anymore. Your party has nominated at least three Nazis this cycle.

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

And the practical difference then, let alone today, is?

Bringing up David Duke is complete and utter BS since the GOP disowned him and endorsed the Dem

1) There are references to Pat Robertson and the Southern Strategy. Disowning David Duke is fine, but how does that one example undermine the rest of the book's hypothesis?

2) It's pretty tough to raise Duke as a defense when Trump has repeatedly refused to disown him over the last 2 years.

Some is true but much is wrong


as GOP in 1990s were Pro Immigration , Pro Free Trade. Also this book talks about how GOP economics is a trick which it is not.

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

There’s no difference anymore. Your party has nominated at least three Nazis this cycle.

The party has disowned them as well(Cruz tweeted that people should vote for the Dem)

[Yank2133]

That book is pretty spot on. Although I would like to add that the complete failure of the Bush Administration played a significant role in the rise of Trump. Establishment Republicans were discredited and Trump ran against them in the primaries as much as he did Obama.  

I would definitely say the failures of the Bush years had more to the rise of Trump than anything else really

Agreed.

The bigotry, racism, and craziness has been apart of the GOP since the 60's. The GOP establishment  were able to thread the needle by getting their votes (Nixon was fond of saying you have to give the nuts 20% of what they want), while giving them very little in return. This strategy worked fine for the 70s, 80s, and 90s. However, everything went to hell during W's administration. The Iraq War, the financial collapse, Katrina etc. All these screw ups led to the establishment wing of the party being shown the door and the nuts who sat in the back took control of the party and here we are.

This is why I don't let NeverTrump conservatives off the hook. A lot of them are responsible for Trump being in office and have yet to take responsibility for it.

[Badger]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

And the practical difference then, let alone today, is?

Bringing up David Duke is complete and utter BS since the GOP disowned him and endorsed the Dem

1) There are references to Pat Robertson and the Southern Strategy. Disowning David Duke is fine, but how does that one example undermine the rest of the book's hypothesis?

2) It's pretty tough to raise Duke as a defense when Trump has repeatedly refused to disown him over the last 2 years.

Some is true but much is wrong


as GOP in 1990s were Pro Immigration , Pro Free Trade. Also this book talks about how GOP economics is a trick which it is not.

Even in the 90's there was a SUBSTANTIAL anti-immigration, anti-free trade element to the party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

You'd have to elaborate more on what the book's characterization of GOP economics "being a trick" means. Though I suspect we'll just wind up arguing about Reaganomics again.

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

Moderate Democrats to the left: Please, we need to come together and strive for bipartisanship with the right:

Which Richard Hofstadter is this? The political theorist Hofstadter was a pretty consistent (if not reluctant at times) leftist throughout most of his career.

Wiki excerpt:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This excerpt is a weird, uncited, totally wrong drive-by misrepresentation of Hofstadter and I have no idea what purpose it's serving.

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

And the practical difference then, let alone today, is?

Bringing up David Duke is complete and utter BS since the GOP disowned him and endorsed the Dem

1) There are references to Pat Robertson and the Southern Strategy. Disowning David Duke is fine, but how does that one example undermine the rest of the book's hypothesis?

2) It's pretty tough to raise Duke as a defense when Trump has repeatedly refused to disown him over the last 2 years.

Some is true but much is wrong


as GOP in 1990s were Pro Immigration , Pro Free Trade. Also this book talks about how GOP economics is a trick which it is not.

Even in the 90's there was a SUBSTANTIAL anti-immigration, anti-free trade element to the party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

You'd have to elaborate more on what the book's characterization of GOP economics "being a trick" means. Though I suspect we'll just wind up arguing about Reaganomics again.

I wouldn't say substantial since he got less than 25% of the primary vote both times despite being really the only anti-establishment candidate in 1996 and the only other candidate in 1992.


Trump is really more to blame for the failures of Bush and the GOP establishment putting all their eggs into the Jeb Basket in 2016. They should have given that money to Kasich(Who had broad appeal) but instead they chose Jeb. They still could have stopped Trump by January if they settled on this strategy: Cruz in Iowa, Kasich in New Hampshire and Rubio in SC but they instead stayed with Jeb until the SC primaries concluded.

[DrScholl]

These things are indeed quite old and have been utilized by Republicans for a long time. One does not need sound economic policy as long as one has religious and social conservatism as a base.

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was no major difference between Jeb! and Kasich. Both of them are for the same tired, failed policies of the Bush Administration. The problem was the establishment having nothing substantial to offer the base, which gave an open for Trump and his lot to run on white grievances.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was no major difference between Jeb! and Kasich. Both of them are for the same tired, failed policies of the Bush Administration. The problem was the establishment having nothing substantial to offer the base, which gave an open for Trump and his lot to run on white grievances.

LOL Kasich did not run on the policies of the Bush Admin , he criticized Iraq a lot and said he would even withdraw from Afghanistan.


Also Kasich has far more achievements than Jeb did, which is why he did way better than Jeb despite having almost no money and no name recognition.

[Intell]

The Republican party is facking great at like clutch issues. Hate abortion vote Republican. Hate gun control, vote Republican. Have white resentment vote Republican etc. You need one issue for a person to be a Republican and much much for a person to be a Democrat.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

I've not read the book, and it's been decades since I've read Hofsteader.

I know what I see.  I don't see conservatism today as being a radically different creature from what it was in the 1990s.  If it emphasizes the social conservative aspects more, its because of the extreme emphasis of social radicalism (wrapped in all sorts of faux benevolence) that has run roughshod over public policy in the last two decades.

And please don't tell me that the left isn't wrapping themselves in the good vs. evil themes.  The same folks that complained when Democrats were portrayed by ideological rightists at communists and Bolshevik fellow travelers freely refer to people who merely VOTED for Trump as facists, racists, alt-Right, etc, in the kind of repetitive mantra that takes a page from the techniques that the master propagandists of evil regimes past would nod at approvingly. 

Whether the left is reacting to the right or they, in fact, started it, is irrelevant.  The blame in this state of affairs is circular, and the losers are American voters seeking for some sort of honest discussion of politics and issues that can lead to the mitigation of some problems, if not their full solution. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

The activists of that day are the politicians of today. Exhibit A: Mike Pence.

[Robert California]

This person is terrible at underlining, and they should feel ashamed for even posting this.

[Alabama_Indy10]

This person is terrible at underlining, and they should feel ashamed for even posting this.

[uti2]

LOL most of is talking about far right-wing activists not the Republican politicians themselves.

And the practical difference then, let alone today, is?

Bringing up David Duke is complete and utter BS since the GOP disowned him and endorsed the Dem

1) There are references to Pat Robertson and the Southern Strategy. Disowning David Duke is fine, but how does that one example undermine the rest of the book's hypothesis?

2) It's pretty tough to raise Duke as a defense when Trump has repeatedly refused to disown him over the last 2 years.

Some is true but much is wrong


as GOP in 1990s were Pro Immigration , Pro Free Trade. Also this book talks about how GOP economics is a trick which it is not.

Even in the 90's there was a SUBSTANTIAL anti-immigration, anti-free trade element to the party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

You'd have to elaborate more on what the book's characterization of GOP economics "being a trick" means. Though I suspect we'll just wind up arguing about Reaganomics again.

I wouldn't say substantial since he got less than 25% of the primary vote both times despite being really the only anti-establishment candidate in 1996 and the only other candidate in 1992.


Trump is really more to blame for the failures of Bush and the GOP establishment putting all their eggs into the Jeb Basket in 2016. They should have given that money to Kasich(Who had broad appeal) but instead they chose Jeb. They still could have stopped Trump by January if they settled on this strategy: Cruz in Iowa, Kasich in New Hampshire and Rubio in SC but they instead stayed with Jeb until the SC primaries concluded.

They did go all-in for Rubio in SC, they even teamed up with Trump to attack Cruz.

[uti2]

That book is pretty spot on. Although I would like to add that the complete failure of the Bush Administration played a significant role in the rise of Trump. Establishment Republicans were discredited and Trump ran against them in the primaries as much as he did Obama.  

I would definitely say the failures of the Bush years had more to the rise of Trump than anything else really

Agreed.

The bigotry, racism, and craziness has been apart of the GOP since the 60's. The GOP establishment  were able to thread the needle by getting their votes (Nixon was fond of saying you have to give the nuts 20% of what they want), while giving them very little in return. This strategy worked fine for the 70s, 80s, and 90s. However, everything went to hell during W's administration. The Iraq War, the financial collapse, Katrina etc. All these screw ups led to the establishment wing of the party being shown the door and the nuts who sat in the back took control of the party and here we are.

This is why I don't let NeverTrump conservatives off the hook. A lot of them are responsible for Trump being in office and have yet to take responsibility for it.

Bush offered far more than 20%, it was closer to 50%.