Future of the GOP

[OSR stands with Israel]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

When has Econ Conservatives really ran the party when they take the WH other than maybe the Reagan years. Bush was clearly more Neo-Con/Socially Conservative than he was Economically Conservative and that isnt really close. Heck on Economics Bush was more moderate than Trump has been and its really not even close in that regard .

[DC Al Fine]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

Sure, I don't disagree with any of that.

I just think it's funny that after seeing years of smug "the GOP/Tories need to go fiscon-soclib-anti nationalist" takes from a certain sort of pundit (who seems to exist disproportionately in Canadian political media for some reason), that Donald freaking Trump is the one who finally started making headway with Hispanics. To say nothing of BoJo or the Ford Brothers wins...

Also re-reading this and my previous post, I realize I'm living vicariously through the GOP, after some disappointing election results, and corresponding weak political analysis. Hopefully Erin O'Toole will rectify that haha.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

Populism is amorphous to the extent that it really just reflects back like a mirror the opposite of what the perceived establishment is.

Republicans managed very well to be both anti-populist and anti-lassiez faire, reversalist and the party of respectable, posh urban enclaves (The forerunners to modern UMC Suburbs), pro-business and yet economically nationalist. This maintained itself well until the Great Depression discredited it and polarized everything based on one pro-gov't party, versus one anti-gov't party.

The development of events, demographics and such now really doesn't well support the existence of an anti-gov't party anymore and that is why you see voices in both parties now clamoring for gov't action, while those against it are seemingly being squeezed out. The ultimate irony is that the sustainability of a small gov't party was entirely dependent on the expansive new suburbs created by economic nationalism led industrialization and then New Deal/GI Bill redistribution. As these suburbs diversify and age, they develop urban needs, shrinking the base for small gov't out of its homeland and dumping it on rural people who don't really much want it and reject it for populist candidates like Huckabee, Trump etc. Going back to 2008 you see C4G trying to push candidates in places like KY-02 and MO-09 only to lose out to more Huckabee esque candidates. The end result is you have urban, suburbs and rural areas, all craving gov't action of some short.

Whether packaged as Christian Democracy or some Americanized version of One Nation Toryism (minus the centralist approach to gov't maybe substituting more decentralized and pro-competition models), I think that is what we are heading back to precisely as a result of the income disparities.

[neostassenite31]

There's really not much difference between these things.

You get shades Trumpism from national level Republucabs as far back as Herbert Hoover circulating photographs of Al Smith dancing with black women. Nay further - there was a Republican Southern Strategy from about 1880 on the Stae level (the lily-whites etc.).

Reagan let himself be read as a libertarian ideologue ("To me, the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism") despite not being particularly libertarian about anything.

Trump didn't "destroy the neocons"; he elevated them to power and then shadowboxed them in public to retain his outsider appeal. None of this is real.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a corporate brand. This is all it is. It represents nothing.

That's a pretty activistic way of looking at America's political parties. 

What do you mean?

It feels like the sort of attitude that grassroots activists hold about the political process and officeholders in general, in the whole "activists-versus-electeds" conflict thing. In this regard we're all activists or pretend "electeds" trying to think like a politico or their strategist

[RINO Tom]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

Populism is amorphous to the extent that it really just reflects back like a mirror the opposite of what the perceived establishment is.

Republicans managed very well to be both anti-populist and anti-lassiez faire, reversalist and the party of respectable, posh urban enclaves (The forerunners to modern UMC Suburbs), pro-business and yet economically nationalist. This maintained itself well until the Great Depression discredited it and polarized everything based on one pro-gov't party, versus one anti-gov't party.

The development of events, demographics and such now really doesn't well support the existence of an anti-gov't party anymore and that is why you see voices in both parties now clamoring for gov't action, while those against it are seemingly being squeezed out. The ultimate irony is that the sustainability of a small gov't party was entirely dependent on the expansive new suburbs created by economic nationalism led industrialization and then New Deal/GI Bill redistribution. As these suburbs diversify and age, they develop urban needs, shrinking the base for small gov't out of its homeland and dumping it on rural people who don't really much want it and reject it for populist candidates like Huckabee, Trump etc. Going back to 2008 you see C4G trying to push candidates in places like KY-02 and MO-09 only to lose out to more Huckabee esque candidates. The end result is you have urban, suburbs and rural areas, all craving gov't action of some short.

Whether packaged as Christian Democracy or some Americanized version of One Nation Toryism (minus the centralist approach to gov't maybe substituting more decentralized and pro-competition models), I think that is what we are heading back to precisely as a result of the income disparities.

And all of this is fine, but it does not have to carry with it the brash, unrefined nature of "Trumpism," to the extent that word means anything.  The GOP could "move left" on economic issues and even "move right" on social issues and still present itself like Charlie Baker rather than Rick Santorum.  I have a little more respect for and faith in "White Working Class" voters than to believe it is the boorish, intolerant and anti-intellectual persona of Trump specifically attracting them to the GOP and rather see a more important driver of this change a complete ineptitude on the part of the national Democratic Party.  

Therefore, I see it as entirely achievable to retain "working class" support while stopping the bleeding with various Romney-Clinton-type demographics via doing things that should be VERY easy ... like not treating women in a sexist manner on national TV or preemptively defending the Confederacy or going against scientific consensus on things like climate change because "elites."  An inoffensive and articulate GOP can still provide government solutions (with a market-oriented bent, compared to the Democrats) to average Americans' financial problems.  It can still uphold traditional values.  It can still maintain that a civilized society must secure its borders.  None of this is conditional on anti-intellectualism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

DC, you're one of the smartest, most well-grounded posters on this site, and you know perfectly well that there is a big difference between simply being a social conservative and preaching the type of anti-intellectual, intolerant message that the worst elements of Trumpism have espoused.  One does not have to choose between a heartless, Ayne-Rand-inspired right wing and a classless, intellectually dishonest and ideologically confused brand of Trumpism.  I get that SoCons feel vindicated right now (for some reason), but Dwight Eisenhower was a social conservative.  Ronald Reagan was.  Our ideas as a center-right party need to be presented with dignity, and to rile up the masses with emotional appeal is a direct affront to our political heritage and betrayal of the good conservatives who have served America in the past.  When American Republicans claim to cherish things like the Constitution, they should appreciate the intellectualism behind the document and the rejection of rash populism that it endorses.

Populism is amorphous to the extent that it really just reflects back like a mirror the opposite of what the perceived establishment is.

Republicans managed very well to be both anti-populist and anti-lassiez faire, reversalist and the party of respectable, posh urban enclaves (The forerunners to modern UMC Suburbs), pro-business and yet economically nationalist. This maintained itself well until the Great Depression discredited it and polarized everything based on one pro-gov't party, versus one anti-gov't party.

The development of events, demographics and such now really doesn't well support the existence of an anti-gov't party anymore and that is why you see voices in both parties now clamoring for gov't action, while those against it are seemingly being squeezed out. The ultimate irony is that the sustainability of a small gov't party was entirely dependent on the expansive new suburbs created by economic nationalism led industrialization and then New Deal/GI Bill redistribution. As these suburbs diversify and age, they develop urban needs, shrinking the base for small gov't out of its homeland and dumping it on rural people who don't really much want it and reject it for populist candidates like Huckabee, Trump etc. Going back to 2008 you see C4G trying to push candidates in places like KY-02 and MO-09 only to lose out to more Huckabee esque candidates. The end result is you have urban, suburbs and rural areas, all craving gov't action of some short.

Whether packaged as Christian Democracy or some Americanized version of One Nation Toryism (minus the centralist approach to gov't maybe substituting more decentralized and pro-competition models), I think that is what we are heading back to precisely as a result of the income disparities.

And all of this is fine, but it does not have to carry with it the brash, unrefined nature of "Trumpism," to the extent that word means anything.  The GOP could "move left" on economic issues and even "move right" on social issues and still present itself like Charlie Baker rather than Rick Santorum.

For that to happen, "responsible establishment politicians" need to actually seek to package it that why and not manipulate everything to keep passing the same Koch brothers agenda, only engendering more hatred for the establishment and opening the path for more Donald Trump's.

[Tollen]

Does it bother either of you, or any of you, that so much of your time in political discussion is taken up by talking about the A E S T H E T I C S of this movement or that?

[RINO Tom]

Does it bother either of you, or any of you, that so much of your time in political discussion is taken up by talking about the A E S T H E T I C S of this movement or that?

I don't speak non-avatar, especially when said poster with under 20 posts seems like a prick, lol.

[Gass3268]

Other: Authoritarian Fascism

[DINGO Joe]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

When has Econ Conservatives really ran the party when they take the WH other than maybe the Reagan years. Bush was clearly more Neo-Con/Socially Conservative than he was Economically Conservative and that isnt really close. Heck on Economics Bush was more moderate than Trump has been and its really not even close in that regard .

Your fantasy that the Reagan years were economically conservative have always been an endless fantasy of yours.

[Alcibiades]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

When has Econ Conservatives really ran the party when they take the WH other than maybe the Reagan years. Bush was clearly more Neo-Con/Socially Conservative than he was Economically Conservative and that isnt really close. Heck on Economics Bush was more moderate than Trump has been and its really not even close in that regard .

Your fantasy that the Reagan years were economically conservative have always been an endless fantasy of yours.

Economically they were conservative, in that the GOP looked to shaft the poor and declare open season on the most vulnerable in society. Fiscally they were not, with the huge deficits and all.

[DINGO Joe]

The future for the GOP is clearly a multiracial working class coalition, so I voted #2 and #4. This is easier said than done, though, and will eventually entail them dropping both their hard right economic positions and racial dog-whistling, which will be hard for many in the party to do.

The electoral results of the past few years have been glorious for this. It's so exciting to see all the fiscal conservatives who told the other parts of the right to shut up for the sake of electability getting told that they are the ones who need to tone it down.

When has Econ Conservatives really ran the party when they take the WH other than maybe the Reagan years. Bush was clearly more Neo-Con/Socially Conservative than he was Economically Conservative and that isnt really close. Heck on Economics Bush was more moderate than Trump has been and its really not even close in that regard .

Your fantasy that the Reagan years were economically conservative have always been an endless fantasy of yours.

Economically they were conservative, in that the GOP looked to shaft the poor and declare open season on the most vulnerable in society. Fiscally they were not, with the huge deficits and all.

Yes, you are correct, but OSR is enamored with the fiscal fantasy

[MT Treasurer]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

[Alcibiades]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

Reagan ignoring the AIDs epidemic was pretty clearly motivated by wanting to keep the Religious Right onside, no? I would argue that had some pretty serious consequences for a lot of gay men.

Although admittedly, that can perhaps be categorised under Reagan’s general callousness towards the marginalised rather than any conviction that AIDs was “God’s punishment for homosexuality” or whatever.

[WD]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

Reagan ignoring the AIDs epidemic was pretty clearly motivated by wanting to keep the Religious Right onside, no? I would argue that had some pretty serious consequences for a lot of gay men.

I always thought it was moreso the cultural and societal way gay men were viewed in the 80s, obviously not really respected in society, so not as much care/attention was given by the government and overall just wasn’t a priority for him, or he didn’t care. It wasn’t necessarily an attempt to galvanize the religious right.

[Alcibiades]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

Reagan ignoring the AIDs epidemic was pretty clearly motivated by wanting to keep the Religious Right onside, no? I would argue that had some pretty serious consequences for a lot of gay men.

I always thought it was moreso the cultural and societal way gay men we’re viewed in the 80s, obviously not really respected in society, so not as much care/attention was given by the government and overall just wasn’t a priority for him, or he didn’t care. It wasn’t necessarily an attempt to galvanize the religious right.

Yeah, I realised that - see my edit shortly before you made this post.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

I was talking about George W Bush on that point , not Reagan as it was Bush who was clearly more socially conservative than domestic/economically conservative.

In Social issues : Bush banned partial birth abortion through legislation, appointed pretty conservative judges especially without hindsight , Bush vetoed stem cell research bills and had put strict restrictions on it through executive order , and pushed to ban gay marriage through an constitutional amendment.


On the other hand on economic/domestic  issues : Bush did Medicare Part D , supported having the federal government take a more direct role on education , expanded the size of government by more than any president since LBJ

[darklordoftech]

Also, the idea that the Reagan administration at any point prioritized social conservatism in anything other than occasional lip service, empty promises (e.g. the appointment of evangelicals to the administration in proportion to their numbers in the population, a constitutional amendment allowing reestablishment of prayer in schools, etc.), and inspirational rhetoric in front of favorable audiences or that Reagan was genuinely interested in the causes and concerns of the Religious Right rather than their votes is laughable. Reagan played Falwell and other leaders of the New Right like a fiddle and they completely fell for it, e.g. when he assured Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a reliable conservative vote on the Court even when it was blatantly obvious (including to other Christian Right leaders/social conservatives like Robertson) that this was obviously not the case (and clearly not borne out by her judicial record).

The Republican ‘establishment’ has no one but itself to blame for its ‘angry’ and ‘disillusioned’ base when it has treated many of those people with contempt for decades or left their concerns unaddressed even when Republican presidents had the political capital and power to move those issues forward.

I was talking about George W Bush on that point , not Reagan as it was Bush who was clearly more socially conservative than domestic/economically conservative.

In Social issues : Bush banned partial birth abortion through legislation, appointed pretty conservative judges especially without hindsight , Bush vetoed stem cell research bills and had put strict restrictions on it through executive order , and pushed to ban gay marriage through an constitutional amendment.


On the other hand on economic/domestic  issues : Bush did Medicare Part D , supported having the federal government take a more direct role on education , expanded the size of government by more than any president since LBJ

Do you know where Bush stood on the individual mandate for health insurance? I know that Republicans ranging from McCain to Gingrich to DeMint were expressing support for an individual mandate as late as 2008.

[Beet]

Oh, Reagan was definitely a win for the religious right. Not as much as Trump sure, but prior to him, the GOP platform on abortion rights was weak, and crucially, they actually supported the Equal Rights Amendment. The abandonment of that plank was one reason why women demonstrated outside the Detroit convention in 1980 and a gender gap emerged that year, which has been with us ever since.

[Calthrina950]

Oh, Reagan was definitely a win for the religious right. Not as much as Trump sure, but prior to him, the GOP platform on abortion rights was weak, and crucially, they actually supported the Equal Rights Amendment. The abandonment of that plank was one reason why women demonstrated outside the Detroit convention in 1980 and a gender gap emerged that year, which has been with us ever since.

A few months ago, I watched NBC News reports between July and December 1980, concerning that year's election. In their reports discussing the Republican National Convention, they spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Party's decision to abandon its support for the Equal Rights Amendment and to adopt a more hardline platform with regards to abortion. A number of moderate and liberal Republican women protested against these changes, and fought to prevent them, to no avail. One of them-I cannot remember her name-who was a high-ranking Party official, was so angered by the changes that she supported (and worked for) John Anderson, the moderate Republican congressman from Illinois who ran an independent candidacy that year, and was concerned by Reagan's move of the Party to the right. When giving his concession speech, Anderson praised this woman for her efforts on his behalf.

[SingingAnalyst]

Oh, Reagan was definitely a win for the religious right. Not as much as Trump sure, but prior to him, the GOP platform on abortion rights was weak, and crucially, they actually supported the Equal Rights Amendment. The abandonment of that plank was one reason why women demonstrated outside the Detroit convention in 1980 and a gender gap emerged that year, which has been with us ever since.

A few months ago, I watched NBC News reports between July and December 1980, concerning that year's election. In their reports discussing the Republican National Convention, they spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Party's decision to abandon its support for the Equal Rights Amendment and to adopt a more hardline platform with regards to abortion. A number of moderate and liberal Republican women protested against these changes, and fought to prevent them, to no avail. One of them-I cannot remember her name-who was a high-ranking Party official, was so angered by the changes that she supported (and worked for) John Anderson, the moderate Republican congressman from Illinois who ran an independent candidacy that year, and was concerned by Reagan's move of the Party to the right. When giving his concession speech, Anderson praised this woman for her efforts on his behalf.

Mary Crisp, who also campaigned for Mondale in 1984. A Goldwater-Mondale voter, a rare thing.