Why the Hawley hype?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just despise those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just don't want reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less

Why, though?  I mean, it doesn't bother me if you feel that way, but that's not a wise stance for any political party to make.  The US isn't like most of Europe which has several smaller parties with narrow, even niche coalitions.  The GOP has to work within the confines of the 2 party system.

Also, it would be a brazen mis-characterization to assume that the vast majority of 4 year degree voters are staunch supply siders and budget hawks.  The keynesian neo-liberalism that is the establishment norm (which most of these voters and the majority of the country supports) is not some right-wing view.  They probably heavily supported Reaganomics in 1985, and maybe even 1995, but the economics of Sowell/Friedman/Rothbard (which I've read alot in 2013-2015) are a minority position in the US, and has been for some period of time.

Just it hurts me to realise that in 10-year time  people with views like me (I am looking at you, OSR and Mark Meadows) will be a minority that won't have any political representation.
And nothing can be done to stop this tide at all this time. Reagan Revolution era in Conservativism unfortunately nears it's end.

Well, I guess Libertarian Party would be cracking around 6-8%  by 2036.  

OSR will be just fine, he understands Reagan the man and how he was able to build a strong winning coalition. You have to bring everyone along for the ride and work to make sure they all benefit. Once you start engaging in this game of I don't understand miners therefore I cannot share a party with you, the game is already up. Reagan figured out how to get both suburban bankers and the small town factory worker under the same roof. I might be out of touch with yours and Haley/Ryan's mentality, but I would never be caught dead refusing to share a party with you guys.

The funny part is I am not actually a populist, truth of the matter is populism scares the hell out of me as a Burkean Conservative and a believer in responsible finance. But if you don't address pressing needs, the people will find someone who will. Because conservatives failed to answer the dislocations caused by Free Trade, we ended up with our first protectionist President in decades and it can always get worse. If you really want to avert the next Trump, you have to make sure that your economic policies benefit the whole base, not one part (which is being squeezed by demographic change and liberalization) while telling the larger one to "suck it up" and learn to code.

Reagan understood how to do that. He put quotas on Japanese automakers, compromised with the Democrats to extend the life of social security and at the time ending stagflation benefited everyone not just suburbanites.

Yah if you listed out the policies Reagan implemented without listing his name many conservatives would call him a massive RINO .

On Free Trade: He was  free trader but in the mid 1980s his tarrifs on Japan actually saved the free trade ideology as the I beleive congress was about to pass bill that would have overridden reagan on trade and implement protectionism and Reagan understanding what that would do for free trade he eventually decided to put tarrifs on Japan


On Taxes: Yes he cut them but the 1986 bill also raised capital gains taxes, made it harder to take advantage of Depreciation, removed decutions for passive losses , expanded the earned income tax credit. He also raised the cap of social security taxes in a separate bill

On Healthcare: He signed a bill that required emergency rooms to treat patients without considering the patients ability to pay and basically used goverment regulations to expand Healthcare access.

On Environmental Regulations: He took governmental actions against the ozone layer crises and used regulatory powers to do so.

Reagan on economics is frankly to the left of Trump once you get beyond the rhetoric and look at the policies

[Rover]

Ronald Reagan fought unfair trade practices by imposing import quotas on steel, machine tools and Japanese cars, and using a 50 percent tariff to save Harley-Davidson. But like OSR already alluded that doesn't make him an anti-free trade. Sometimes you have to use protectionist means to enhance free trade.

The biggest flow in Reagans presidency is his educational policy. This been a massive issue for the GOP. W Bush tried to do something with no child left behind, the act was rushed, it became a quick fix rather than a long term solution.
Of course teachers unions are a major obstucle to any meaningful reform.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

On Free Trade: He was  free trader but in the mid 1980s his tarrifs on Japan actually saved the free trade ideology as the I beleive congress was about to pass bill that would have overridden reagan on trade and implement protectionism and Reagan understanding what that would do for free trade he eventually decided to put tarrifs on Japan

This is what I called preventive co-option, taking control of the issue yourself to prevent the other side from handling it "Their way" and thus saving the underlying issue.

This is why Conservatives today, are terribly ineffective compared to Reagan back then. Reagan knew how to function and maneuver a situation to his benefit and to his long term point. To people like Haley/Ryan this is just a socialist, traitor, RINO who needs to be hauled out into the street and lynched.

The Conservative Movement and its Soviet style purification has made conservatism stupid and ineffectual, relying on sticks in the mud that everyone just wants to take an axe or a chain saw too. Reagan knew what he was doing, Ted Cruz doesn't.

Its like the difference between John Bell Hood at Atlanta and Robert E Lee at Chancellorsville. Cruz is Hood, Reagan is Lee. Hood was even picked because Johnston was considered to be too cautious, so the first thing Hood did was charge out and attack Sherman. He got destroyed allowing Sherman to take Atlanta and burn the state to the ground in the march to the sea. But hey rather lose than war than be a "coward", am I right? At Chancellorsville Lee pulled back along the front, and only sent probes to keep Hooker in place, while he sent Jackson around their right flank and cut them to pieces.

That's smart strategy, we cannot do smart strategy because we are so concerned about finding the next Benedict Arnold, we can't trap British at Yorktown.

[QAnonKelly]

On Free Trade: He was  free trader but in the mid 1980s his tarrifs on Japan actually saved the free trade ideology as the I beleive congress was about to pass bill that would have overridden reagan on trade and implement protectionism and Reagan understanding what that would do for free trade he eventually decided to put tarrifs on Japan

This is what I called preventive co-option, taking control of the issue yourself to prevent the other side from handling it "Their way" and thus saving the underlying issue.

This is why Conservatives today, are terribly ineffective compared to Reagan back then. Reagan knew how to function and maneuver a situation to his benefit and to his long term point. To people like Haley/Ryan this is just a socialist, traitor, RINO who needs to be hauled out into the street and lynched.

The Conservative Movement and its Soviet style purification has made conservatism stupid and ineffectual, relying on sticks in the mud that everyone just wants to take an axe or a chain saw too. Reagan knew what he was doing, Ted Cruz doesn't.

Its like the difference between John Bell Hood at Atlanta and Robert E Lee at Chancellorsville. Cruz is Hood, Reagan is Lee. Hood was even picked because Johnston was considered to be too cautious, so the first thing Hood did was charge out and attack Sherman. He got destroyed allowing Sherman to take Atlanta and burn the state to the ground in the march to the sea. But hey rather lose than war than be a "coward", am I right? At Chancellorsville Lee pulled back along the front, and only sent probes to keep Hooker in place, while he sent Jackson around their right flank and cut them to pieces.

That's smart strategy, we cannot do smart strategy because we are so concerned about finding the next Benedict Arnold, we can't trap British at Yorktown.

This is what Nixon attempted to do with his universal healthcare proposal back in the day too and the GOP is still suffering from it not getting over the finish line.

[Former President tack50]

Reading the exchanges between Yankee and H/R, I wonder what both, but especially Yankee think about the general Marxist principle that capitalism will inevitably lead to a proletarian revolution and the establishment of a socialist/communist society.

I personally think said point has actually been debunked fairly easily (the USSR has not been around for almost 30 years now; and even something like Hugo Chavez pales in comparison to people like Lenin or Fidel Castro). Still the inevitability of socialism is a big point of Marxist philosophy

Anyways, is Socialism/Communism inevitable under capitalism? Or can it be stopped? (And if so how?)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reading the exchanges between Yankee and H/R, I wonder what both, but especially Yankee think about the general Marxist principle that capitalism will inevitably lead to a proletarian revolution and the establishment of a socialist/communist society.

I personally think said point has actually been debunked fairly easily (the USSR has not been around for almost 30 years now; and even something like Hugo Chavez pales in comparison to people like Lenin or Fidel Castro). Still the inevitability of socialism is a big point of Marxist philosophy

Anyways, is Socialism/Communism inevitable under capitalism? Or can it be stopped? (And if so how?)

No it is not inevitable and the reason why they think it is inevitable is because they reduce all of history to class struggle and that is not accurate and thus the falacy is born.

What I will say is that chaos of any kind creates the impulse for authoritarian solutions, and likewise despair leads people to make desperate choices, but that could lead to any number of bad outcomes. Communism/Socialism is just one, it could also lead to fascism, to nazism, to populism (Which can be just as dangerous look at Andrew Jackson or more recently...). Therefore it is incumbent on the establishment, on the elites to operate on a basis of resolving existing problems rather then let them fester to the point where radicalism comes on the table and they start looking to the crazed men to solve the problems that the establishment won't.

I have often said if there was just one establishment candidate who had the balls to run on the same general combination as Trump (trade skepticism, border security and foreign policy restraint), Trump would not have been nominated. Because no establishment candidate did that, we now have the constitution being rung through a cheese grater and facing a decade or more in the wilderness. Populism is dangerous, you thwart populists by coopting them, not pretending they will just go away like the GOP did on immigration in 2013.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

DeSantis clearly will be the candidate on the populist wing so I see no reason why Hawley would be the contender.

What is the “Populist wing” and how does DeSantis fit in such a category?

People who really care about banning immigration, breaking treaties, and criminalzing abortion  and pretend to care less about their donors than the average Republican.

I don't know if you consider Trump being the leader of the "populist wing" but it's pretty clear from the 2016 primary that many of his supporters didn't care much about abortion and that Trump personally doesn't give a f**k. (differently from other "populist" candidates like Huckabee and Santorum)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less

Well, you can think what you will, but you really sound like a dick. Sorry.
Ironically, in that post you embody one stereotype about Republicans (snob out-of-touch elite who only cares about shrinking the government and not about other people) while reciting another stereotype about Republicans (ignorant hick redneck).

[UkrainianRepublican]

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less

Well, you can think what you will, but you really sound like a dick. Sorry.
Ironically, in that post you embody one stereotype about Republicans (snob out-of-touch elite who only cares about shrinking the government and not about other people) while reciting another stereotype about Republicans (ignorant hick redneck).

I prefer to be elitist than a redneck.

[KaiserDave]

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

That's a good way of explaining Hawley-ism, thank you

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less

Well, you can think what you will, but you really sound like a dick. Sorry.
Ironically, in that post you embody one stereotype about Republicans (snob out-of-touch elite who only cares about shrinking the government and not about other people) while reciting another stereotype about Republicans (ignorant hick redneck).

I prefer to be elitist than a redneck.

Fine.
Out of curiosity, would you associate yourself with the Democratic Party if it pulled a Macron and became seriously economically moderate?

[UkrainianRepublican]

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less

Well, you can think what you will, but you really sound like a dick. Sorry.
Ironically, in that post you embody one stereotype about Republicans (snob out-of-touch elite who only cares about shrinking the government and not about other people) while reciting another stereotype about Republicans (ignorant hick redneck).

I prefer to be elitist than a redneck.

Fine.
Out of curiosity, would you associate yourself with the Democratic Party if it pulled a Macron and became seriously economically moderate?

If it If it became moderate on economics and stopped rising of Justice Dems, then probably I would sometimes  associate myself with it. Think about Bill Clinton economics and social stances slightly adjusted to 2020.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less

Well, you can think what you will, but you really sound like a dick. Sorry.
Ironically, in that post you embody one stereotype about Republicans (snob out-of-touch elite who only cares about shrinking the government and not about other people) while reciting another stereotype about Republicans (ignorant hick redneck).

I prefer to be elitist than a redneck.

Fine.
Out of curiosity, would you associate yourself with the Democratic Party if it pulled a Macron and became seriously economically moderate?

If it If it became moderate on economics and stopped rising of Justice Dems, then probably I would sometimes  associate myself with it. Think about Bill Clinton economics and social stances slightly adjusted to 2020.

Yeah I was thinking about Bill Clinton, together with Macron.
What is your opinion of Volodymyr Zelensky?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less

Well, you can think what you will, but you really sound like a dick. Sorry.
Ironically, in that post you embody one stereotype about Republicans (snob out-of-touch elite who only cares about shrinking the government and not about other people) while reciting another stereotype about Republicans (ignorant hick redneck).

I prefer to be elitist than a redneck.

Elitist or redneck, we all walk the same earth, breath the same air and desire peace, prosperity and freedom. The only way for one or the other to survive is for both to reach some level of understanding and work together for the good of everyone. Otherwise, the politics of confusion, chaos and extremism will not end, it will get worse. Ultimately, if you want to prevent the next Donald Trump, that is the only way to do it.

[Saint Milei]

Threads like this are always going to show why the conservative movement will forever be fractured. The Reagan coalition was needed in the 80s, but even that created massive problems both ideologically and practically.

1. I don't see how any fiscal con can really justify the bad things Reagan did and defend them by saying "well he knew it would get worse so he did this bad thing to prevent another bad thing". I'm not accepting that argument. I'm a firm believer Reagan did not have the follow-through to finish what he wanted to start in 76 and only got worse as his presidency continued.

2. I think I've come to accept that most market conservatives are either libertarians that don't care about social issues that much or are pro-business conservatives and not actually pro-markets. This probably explains why so many cons are willing to sacrifice economics to preserve social or cultural fights, and also preserve their seats in Congress.

3. I see no path for the GOP moving forward if we have to target suburban America and the wealthy.  The only way we will ever see the real change we want to see, and by real I mean a balanced budget, cuts in spending, a more united foreign policy, and an era where the right is not deemed inherently racist, is by catering to the most disenfranchised and marginalized groups in society. This, ironically would possibly create a huge demographic flip that most conservatives wouldn't understand.

4. I know most conservatives hate to admit this, but the GOP has to become more libertarian if it wants to be the party of small government and traditional values. Buchanan and Paul (both) did far more to energize the base and preserve conservatism than typical generic Rs such as Romney and Bush. This doesn't mean go LP crazy.

5. It's weird how I agree more with Yankee than I do Haley/Ryan, when Yankee is probably less conservative (PM score wise) than Haley/Ryan



IMO, the strategy should look something like this:
1. Condemn neoconservatism (sorry Sunrise) and liberal internationalism
2. Target AAs who are going to suffer the most from these changing demographics
3. Attack the elite which include the establishment, wealthy white liberals, and academia
4. Stress honest capitalism and attack corporate capitalism
5. Be more tolerant on social issues
6. Do not give in to the left on culture wars

Right-winged populism bringing together a coalition of paleos and marginalized groups is our future

[Rover]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Those military bases exist where they are because of congressional involvement. It is also no accident that many military bases built in World War II and World War I, bear the names of Confederate leaders. Both times, Democrats were in the majority and owing to GOP landslides in years like 1894, 1904 and 1920, the only Democrats with seniority were the ones who didn't face competition, ie Southerners at a time when the lost cause was at its zenith, hence the names and the locations.

Though admittedly weather and climate make them appealing, but this does mean that a number of economic dependency are created, that with the move to the sunbelt for the GOP, the GOP thus inherited. So the Pentagon will say what it will, the Congress will likely not do anything to change it.

The Republicans have always been the vehicle for big business. That is why they favored big government prior to 1896, and have been inconsistent and hypocritically in favor of small government on paper while still desiring large spending on sectors that they like (oil, defense contractors etc) and opposing efforts to reign them in like all the corruption with they defense contractors in the Bush years.

[Saint Milei]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

[Rover]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

Certainly, I'd agree with you that the Republican congress was responsible for balancing the budget, It's one of the reasons why I voted for John Kasich in 2016 primaries, he was the house budget committee chairman. Of course, it was much easier to balance the books when the economy was booming in the 1990s.
Regarding Obama, the deficit did in fact go down, he didn't impose major cuts, but he did raise taxes. And the economy was growing hence budget revenue increased. The graph shows the budget deficit since 1981.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Threads like this are always going to show why the conservative movement will forever be fractured. The Reagan coalition was needed in the 80s, but even that created massive problems both ideologically and practically.

1. I don't see how any fiscal con can really justify the bad things Reagan did and defend them by saying "well he knew it would get worse so he did this bad thing to prevent another bad thing". I'm not accepting that argument. I'm a firm believer Reagan did not have the follow-through to finish what he wanted to start in 76 and only got worse as his presidency continued.

2. I think I've come to accept that most market conservatives are either libertarians that don't care about social issues that much or are pro-business conservatives and not actually pro-markets. This probably explains why so many cons are willing to sacrifice economics to preserve social or cultural fights, and also preserve their seats in Congress.

3. I see no path for the GOP moving forward if we have to target suburban America and the wealthy.  The only way we will ever see the real change we want to see, and by real I mean a balanced budget, cuts in spending, a more united foreign policy, and an era where the right is not deemed inherently racist, is by catering to the most disenfranchised and marginalized groups in society. This, ironically would possibly create a huge demographic flip that most conservatives wouldn't understand.

4. I know most conservatives hate to admit this, but the GOP has to become more libertarian if it wants to be the party of small government and traditional values. Buchanan and Paul (both) did far more to energize the base and preserve conservatism than typical generic Rs such as Romney and Bush. This doesn't mean go LP crazy.

5. It's weird how I agree more with Yankee than I do Haley/Ryan, when Yankee is probably less conservative (PM score wise) than Haley/Ryan



IMO, the strategy should look something like this:
1. Condemn neoconservatism (sorry Sunrise) and liberal internationalism
2. Target AAs who are going to suffer the most from these changing demographics
3. Attack the elite which include the establishment, wealthy white liberals, and academia
4. Stress honest capitalism and attack corporate capitalism
5. Be more tolerant on social issues
6. Do not give in to the left on culture wars

Right-winged populism bringing together a coalition of paleos and marginalized groups is our future

Put like that, I'm totally fine with that -- because it preserves the two things I care about (fiscal/social conservatism) and keeps it alive without giving up on our values. That's completely different from what Yankee whats, which is simply giving into the left and supporting expansions of government and abandoning our principles on healthcare, marriage, taxes, free markets, etc. As for demographics, I don't really care so long as it gets the job, but I do think you're overstating how easy it is to win AA voters -- the sense of entitlement among non-immigrant AA urban voters is very high, and unless Republicans give in on police reform, on reparations, on giveaways ("subsidies" like Democrats do with the Minority Business Development Agency) to black neighborhoods, etc etc, we are not going to be able to win there. Our best bet is to build up non-college white support, try to hold the line with white college educated voters, increase turnout (ie evangelicals), and work on more integrated Hispanics (the kind of person who marks white on the census but hispanic for ethnicity and lives in some suburb like Hialeah etc etc).

2. I think I've come to accept that most market conservatives are either libertarians that don't care about social issues that much or are pro-business conservatives and not actually pro-markets. This probably explains why so many cons are willing to sacrifice economics to preserve social or cultural fights, and also preserve their seats in Congress.

However, I really take issue with this.

I am a market conservative. I believe in abolishing the income tax, entitlement reform, reducing the size of government, and repealing and replacing Obamcare.

But I am also a social conservative. As I have said on other occasions on this forum, I believe in punishing abortion with the death penalty. I believe life begins at conception. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support school prayer.

Those two things are not contradictory, and I don't only care about one or the other. I care about them both very deeply, and I know that at least some of our Congressmen do as well.

[Blair]

It's a sign of hilarity for the 2024 republican primary if Hawley is considered a neo-communist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Put like that, I'm totally fine with that -- because it preserves the two things I care about (fiscal/social conservatism) and keeps it alive without giving up on our values. That's completely different from what Yankee whats, which is simply giving into the left and supporting expansions of government and abandoning our principles on healthcare, marriage, taxes, free markets, etc.

This is bullsh**t. I oppose single payer, I support market competition and I think taxes should be kept "as low as practical" while still being able to pay down our enormous debt to places like China, before they use it to start dictating policy to us. I support the right to self-defense/oppose the Assault Weapons ban and I am pro-life.

Frankly, I think Rand Paul was onto something in 2013 when he was trying to sell minorities on a consistent small government platform that runs the gambit of opposing foreign war, minimizing the policy/surveillance state, and scaling back the war on drugs. These policies are all BIG GOVERNMENT whether you want to admit it or not, excuse it or not, and they have all done horrendous damage to minority communities and families (we are suppose to be the small gov't and pro-family people, yet we condone violations of small gov't orthodoxy when it does tremendous damage but never when it might help said family structures. There is a clear double standard here).

Why is it you get to lecture me on deviating from small gov't principles on drug prices, but you get a free pass on big government when it comes to war, and the police?

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/05/recalling-the-days-when-democrats-cut-taxes.html

When JFK's tax legislation came before Congress, Democrats in the House voted for it 223-29 and in the Senate 56-11, while Republicans voted against it in the House 126-48 and for it in the Senate 21-10. The GOP candidate for president in 1964, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, voted against.

This article was composed by Larry Kudlow by the way.

Fiscal conservatism is not the same as supply side economics, and in fact you could argue they are at contrary purposes. Fiscal conservatism is not spending more than what you have, and working to pay down the national debt. Supply side economics calls for deficit funded tax cuts to grow the economy as a stimulative measure. There are two problems with this, 1) unless you have the political capital to actually restrain spending and lets face it, they don't as Rover and Deadprez pointed out, it will always increase the debt and 2). The benefits always flow to those areas that are already doing well, namely those places that are at the vanguard of social liberalism these days for the most part. If you think about it, you are subsidizing the destruction of traditional marriage this way.

I am a market conservative. I believe in abolishing the income tax, entitlement reform, reducing the size of government, and repealing and replacing Obamcare.

But I am also a social conservative. As I have said on other occasions on this forum, I believe in punishing abortion with the death penalty. I believe life begins at conception. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support school prayer.

Those two things are not contradictory, and I don't only care about one or the other. I care about them both very deeply, and I know that at least some of our Congressmen do as well.

They are not contradictory to you because you live in a sheltered situation in which you experience none of the negatives of the policies and thus cannot comprehend how it can be inconsistent in practice. How economical neoliberalism, incentivizes social liberalism. How a no knock raid on an innocent man suspected of drug possession that turns bad, can ruin a black family's world. How an unnecessary foreign conflict can break up and destroy a family. Hell, I even laid our a scenario, real life scenario that I practically experienced first hand as to how outsourcing can lead to financial strain, marital problems, abuse and drug/alcohol use and you rejected it and twisted it to claim I was a communist. Instability causes family decay, it is a simple concept and one that is all to real among those non-college whites you want to expand among.

At the end of the day, for all the lecturing me about being out of touch, you don't seem to grasp how these policies interact with real people, or the real damage that they can cause.

Just what do you think will happen when you expand among "non-college whites". I lived up north, I was born there, I can tell you how non-college whites look when you get out of the bible belt.
1. They are very secular, perhaps at most low frequency Catholic
2. They might be pro-life and pro-gun
3. They are most certainly protectionist and want the factories back
4. They want Social Security and Medicare protected
5. A large number of them would probably support Medicare for all when the rubber meets the road, or at least the concept in in a vacuum without consideration for the problems that would cause.

[Former President tack50]

Certainly, I'd agree with you that the Republican congress was responsible for balancing the budget, It's one of the reasons why I voted for John Kasich in 2016 primaries, he was the house budget committee chairman. Of course, it was much easier to balance the books when the economy was booming in the 1990s.
Regarding Obama, the deficit did in fact go down, he didn't impose major cuts, but he did raise taxes. And the economy was growing hence budget revenue increased. The graph shows the budget deficit since 1981.

Regarding the deficit, I think an interesting point to make is a comparison with Europe. Here are, for example the criteria to join the Euro (not like the US would ever do that, but it is an interesting thing to look at to get an idea of "how" the deficit should be ran)

As of now, the EU mandates a maximum deficit of 3% under normal circumstances (ie without covid-19).

It also mandates that the debt/GDP ratio of the country must be either:
a) Below 60%
b) Declining by at least 5% per year on a 3 year rolling average

So if in terms of the deficit, the US are failing miserably, with a 4.6% budget deficit and a debt/GDP ratio of 107% with no real declines

If the United States were an EU country, they would not be in the "good economies" club along the likes of Germany and the Netherlands; but rather on the "finanacial disasters" club alongside Spain and Greece.

It does not matter at all since the US has a lot of other advantages compared to Spain/Greece (literally "haha money printer go brrr") but it is still a bad sign

[Nightcore Nationalist]

This is bullsh**t. I oppose single payer, I support market competition and I think taxes should be kept "as low as practical" while still being able to pay down our enormous debt to places like China, before they use it to start dictating policy to us. I support the right to self-defense/oppose the Assault Weapons ban and I am pro-life.

In your opinion, where should the GOP go in terms of healthcare?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is bullsh**t. I oppose single payer, I support market competition and I think taxes should be kept "as low as practical" while still being able to pay down our enormous debt to places like China, before they use it to start dictating policy to us. I support the right to self-defense/oppose the Assault Weapons ban and I am pro-life.

In your opinion, where should the GOP go in terms of healthcare?

This may come as a surprise to Haley/Ryan, but I don't think America is well suited to a single payer system based on its system of gov't as a Federal Republic and its traditions of states rights and so forth.

Very few countries have single payer, a lot of people love to put up a map of countries with "national healthcare" and then claim "we are the only country in the world without single payer", this statement is factually wrong. We are the only one without a working national healthcare system, but we are not the only one without single payer.

In fact most either have multi-payer systems like Germany, locally administered systems like I think Finland or some combination thereof. The countries with single payer are typically in the Anglosphere and follow the lead of the UK. The UK is a unitary state and thus while Canada and Australia are Federations, they are following the lead of a non-federal centralized country. Japan is another and once again another centralized gov't. With a few exceptions most of the rest of the national healthcare systems aren't single payer (and yes I am discounting the whole supplemental insurance/and those aspects of UKs system that technically would take it out of the definition as well because I think it is safe to say that the marketshare held by NHS makes it nearly single payer in practice).

Whatever system we have, needs to respect the states, needs to preserve choice and competition of some kind and needs to avoid monopolization. I am against monopolies whether natural or unnatural because once you are the only provider of something, you lose the competitive forces that cause reductions in price and improvements in quality/service, if it is then a service that people cannot go without, then you essentially have turned the consumer into a slave. That applies to government though just as much as it does to the private sector.

At the same time we have the dynamic of 1) allowing people with no insurance to get emergency room care, which you kind of have to do for multiple reasons, 2) that cost then gets spread throughout the rest of the system as healthcare inflation and 3) it would be cheaper and more effective to insure them up front and cover the cost of preventative medicine.

Preventative medicine is much cheaper in the long run then constantly treating poor people after they have been debilitated by illness to the point where they cannot work and end up a dependent on the gov't dole. This ironically is yet again another area where Conservatism has been working at cross purposes, by resisting direct help to poor people for healthcare, they help to create more dependency, reduce work and productivity.

This was the point I was trying to make with Haley/Ryan about preventative co-option, create a program that respects state's rights, respect choice preservation and works to minimize long term dependency by covering preventative medicine (all three of those are victories for the right) , otherwise you eventually end up with single payer a loss across the board. And to answer his point before he makes it, I don't support this to prevent single payer (though I consider that a hell of a good motivation if you ask me), I support them because I think it is itself good policy when structured in that fashion.

His slippery slope argument is wrong because at the end of the day, the support for radical change comes from desperate people. Radicals would not get entryism to the mainstream if people were content and could get ahead. The very fact that radicals are gaining steam is proof positive that large segments of society are being left behind and they see socialism as the only way out. Conservatism has answers to these problems, or rather alternatively, there are answers to these problems that respect what I would consider conservative values (state's rights, market competition, minimizing gov't dependency, strengthening families etc), yet it doesn't happen largely because of special interest money and also because of the Conservative movement has been trained not to think and to stamp out anyone that doesn't take spoon fed marching orders from the Georgetown think tank elite crowd.

The same arguably applies to drug prices. If you can solve the problem just be removing regulations and reforming patent law, then pray tell do so. Of course that is not the reason why it is not happening and why we are stuck in this place, the real answer is once again special interest money. I have said this point again and again, Business does not care about small gov't, they only pretend to care when it benefits them, aside from that every issue is transactional, with positioned determined based on the benefits. That is why a small gov't party will speak lip service to market competition, then quietly block the bills or the Democrats will block the bills, that will actually end the regulatory capture or whatever else may be causing the monopoly and the price increases.