Check out excerpts from this 90s book on conservatism

[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.

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

They didnt go all in for Rubio in SC until February they needed to start at least a month before


And go all in for Kasich in NH as well


If you had done that You would have had the race be a 3 way race between Kasich , Rubio, Cruz

[RINO Tom]

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.

These claims would hold more weight if they weren't always used opportunistically.  Whether both are "true" or not, hearing a poster say that Trump is the epitome of the post-1968 GOP or something like that (everything was perfect in the 1967 GOP!  or the 1963 GOP!  or whatever year currently works best!) and then turn around and say something like, "this isn't 2012 anymore when the GOP could elect someone like Romney, they're crazy now!" discredits the claims somewhat, IMO.

Before someone gives a tired response like, "well, the GOP was 7/10 crazy in the 1990s but got to 9/10 crazy by 2008 and 15/10 crazy by 2018!!!!" ... you're not using that type of consistency.  When you are trying to make Trump look especially bad, you glorify the Republicans before him (including, in some cases, literally George W. Bush, LOL).  When you're trying to make the fact that the GOP has its electoral strength in the White South look bad, you glorify the pre-CRA GOP as if it had any meaningfully different views on civil rights or some substantial "liberal" wing that vanished one day.  When it comes to economics, you're willing to trash the GOP all the way back to the 1920s, LOL.  It's weird and straight up homerism.  The GOP has enough problems without every Atlas poster writing an overly targeted attack ad on it all the time.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

This analysis is more warmed over and stale than my dinner last night.

[Dabeav]

What is bad about entrepreneurial capitalism? Government workers aren't corrupt or lazy?

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

Government workers aren't corrupt or lazy?

They, by and large, aren't lazy, and in most cases there isn't any inherent difference in the quality of the workers between federal and private workers. Attacks on public workers are vicious, unfounded smears. They're maligned by small government folks because A) public sector workers tend to be more liberal and B) they are an unfortunate casualty of the Right's ideological fear of government spending. If a government employee isn't performing the work, in many cases it gets outsourced to contractors who in many cases are more interested in turning profits than providing quality service.

The only real example I can think of pervasive corruption in government workers is regulatory capture, where workers in regulatory agencies are hired by or from the companies they are supposed to be regulating. This is especially common in finance and shows up a lot in resource/environmental regulation. This can be fixed through legislation putting in more controls over the amount of time between

[Progressive Pessimist]

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

That line has blurred significantly.

[Mr. Smith]

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.  

Except for the whole Pacific Northwest thing...should've said The Rust Belt and Pennsylvania.