Who will win the intraparty war in the GOP?

[pecksniff]

On the one hand, there is the Old Guard, which was always pro-business-interests -- any other consideration, such as social conservatism, or border control, was secondary.

On the other hand, we have something even worse -- a nationalist-populist insurgency which began with Perot's Reform Party, morphed into the Tea Party, then into the Trump movement, and then into . . . whatever it will be after Trump has passed from the scene, but we can be sure it will survive in some form.

The power of the latter cannot be denied or ignored. The GOP gave up its last shred of credibility when its insurgent base scuttled W's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. This wing of the party represents the brain death of American civic life, but it is not going away. It also includes, or has the support of, the slowly fading religious right. (Slowly fading because of a generational decline in religious belief as such, but that's another discussion.)

But the Old Guard still has a lot of power behind it, the backing of mighty Powers That Be in corporate boardrooms, as well as a powerful network of astroturf organizations and economic-libertarian think-tanks and academic institutions and media outlets.

Who will win?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Who will win?

Your mama.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...reene-attack-each-other/ar-AAPjZ2s?li=BBnb7Kz

Everyone loses

 

[RobDownSouth]

Right now the True Believers are at war with the United States Chamber of Commerce....the COC want the infrastructure bill passed so there are better roads and bridges (profits to be made, y'lnow?).

But this support means that the hardcore faithful would have to pass up an opportunity to be "stiggin' it to teh libz", which is heresy.

 

[Cubantripod]

There is no war. That was happened in 2016 and Trump won. At this point, you have a few of the Bush neo-cons such as Cheney trying to take the party back.

 

[Dribble]

No one cares. All Republicans...every last one of them...are Fascist traitors.

 

[Veroe]

On the one hand, there is the Old Guard, which was always pro-business-interests -- any other consideration, such as social conservatism, or border control, was secondary.

On the other hand, we have something even worse -- a nationalist-populist insurgency which began with Perot's Reform Party, morphed into the Tea Party, then into the Trump movement, and then into . . . whatever it will be after Trump has passed from the scene, but we can be sure it will survive in some form.

The power of the latter cannot be denied or ignored. The GOP gave up its last shred of credibility when its insurgent base scuttled W's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. This wing of the party represents the brain death of American civic life, but it is not going away. It also includes, or has the support of, the slowly fading religious right. (Slowly fading because of a generational decline in religious belief as such, but that's another discussion.)

But the Old Guard still has a lot of power behind it, the backing of mighty Powers That Be in corporate boardrooms, as well as a powerful network of astroturf organizations and economic-libertarian think-tanks and academic institutions and media outlets.

Who will win?

I think the nationalist populists like MTG or Hawley will only ever be a joke to the old guard types because they focus all their energy on fighting made up culture war bullshit. As long as they focus on fighting against useless dumb shit like cancel culture or CRT. They're only ever going to be don quixote jousting with dragons that turn out to be only windmills. What a fucking bunch of jokes they are.

The danger they pose is that so many of the voter base believe they're slaying dragons when really they're poking a windmill with a stick.

 

[Cubantripod]

No one cares. All Republicans...every last one of them...are Fascist traitors.

When you have to call anyone that disagree with you a fascist, you might be the true fascist.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

When you have to call anyone that disagree with you a fascist, you might be the true fascist.

"When fascism comes to America, it'll be called 'anti-fascism'" - Huey Long

 

[pecksniff]

"When fascism comes to America, it'll be called 'anti-fascism'" - Huey Long

"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

-- Sinclair Lewis, maybe, nobody's sure, but it sticks nevertheless.

 

[pecksniff]

"When fascism comes to America, it'll be called 'anti-fascism'" - Huey Long

Misattributed, actually.

In real life, Long said things like, of the New Deal, "Whenever this administration has gone to the left I have voted for it, and whenever it has gone to the right I have voted against it," and, "The trouble is, Roosevelt hasn't taken all of my ideas; just part of them. I'm about one hundred yards ahead of him. We're on the same road, but I'm here and he's there," and, "I'm for the poor man — all poor men, black and white, they all gotta have a chance. They gotta have a home, a job, and a decent education for their children. 'Every man a king' — that's my slogan."

 

[pecksniff]

This wing of the party represents the brain death of American civic life . . .

I note that nobody has contradicted this.

 

[pecksniff]

There is no war. That was happened in 2016 and Trump won. At this point, you have a few of the Bush neo-cons such as Cheney trying to take the party back.

Apparently, there's still a fight going on.

 

[Cubantripod]

Apparently, there's still a fight going on.

McConnell and the rest of the Republicans that stayed had to adapt and accept some level of Trumpism if they wanted to remain relevant in the party.

 

[pecksniff]

McConnell and the rest of the Republicans that stayed had to adapt and accept some level of Trumpism if they wanted to remain relevant in the party.

Not enough to satisfy Trump himself.

 

[YDB95]

I think the nationalist populists like MTG or Hawley will only ever be a joke to the old guard types because they focus all their energy on fighting made up culture war bullshit.

"Made up culture war bullshit" is how the Republicans have come to dominate rural America so much. Can't see why they'd stop what's been a winning formula to their base.

 

[CornusKousa]

Right now the True Believers are at war with the United States Chamber of Commerce....the COC want the infrastructure bill passed so there are better roads and bridges (profits to be made, y'lnow?).

But this support means that the hardcore faithful would have to pass up an opportunity to be "stiggin' it to teh libz", which is heresy.

Well if the bill was actually about infrastructure then it would be an easy pass.

Problem is all the totally NOT infrastructure social bullshit that makes up the majority of the bill we can't afford.

I think the nationalist populists like MTG or Hawley will only ever be a joke to the old guard types because they focus all their energy on fighting made up culture war bullshit. As long as they focus on fighting against useless dumb shit like cancel culture or CRT. They're only ever going to be don quixote jousting with dragons that turn out to be only windmills. What a fucking bunch of jokes they are.

The danger they pose is that so many of the voter base believe they're slaying dragons when really they're poking a windmill with a stick.

If it were such a windmill it wouldn't trigger the fucking shit out of the (D)'eez so bad to challenge their culture. I mean the very concept that we shouldn't shame white kids and tell them how inherently evil they all are for being born white sends you lot to the fucking moon with rage.

There is a reason why it upsets (D)'eez so much when they get called on their authoritarianism, hatred of civil liberties and open racism.

Culture is not bullshit, and politicians are wise to pay attention as politics are downstream of culture.

I note that nobody has contradicted this.

That's because ad hom isn't really worth responding to, people not wanting to have all their shit taken and thrown into gulag doesn't make them brain dead.

 

[pecksniff]

"Made up culture war bullshit" is how the Republicans have come to dominate rural America so much. Can't see why they'd stop what's been a winning formula to their base.

Haven't they hit a point of diminishing returns yet?

 

[pecksniff]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...reene-attack-each-other/ar-AAPjZ2s?li=BBnb7Kz

Everyone loses

One wonders where this sort of division comes from -- Wood and Greene both being of the Tea Party/Trump wing.

 

[YDB95]

Haven't they hit a point of diminishing returns yet?

You would think.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Haven't they hit a point of diminishing returns yet?

No one has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

 

[The_Trouvere]

The Republican Base vs Republican Elites

On the one hand, there is the Old Guard, which was always pro-business-interests -- any other consideration, such as social conservatism, or border control, was secondary.

On the other hand, we have something even worse -- a nationalist-populist insurgency which began with Perot's Reform Party, morphed into the Tea Party, then into the Trump movement, and then into . . . whatever it will be after Trump has passed from the scene, but we can be sure it will survive in some form.

The power of the latter cannot be denied or ignored. The GOP gave up its last shred of credibility when its insurgent base scuttled W's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. This wing of the party represents the brain death of American civic life, but it is not going away. It also includes, or has the support of, the slowly fading religious right. (Slowly fading because of a generational decline in religious belief as such, but that's another discussion.)

But the Old Guard still has a lot of power behind it, the backing of mighty Powers That Be in corporate boardrooms, as well as a powerful network of astroturf organizations and economic-libertarian think-tanks and academic institutions and media outlets.

Who will win?

pecksniff, I lack your disdain for populist Republicanism and the Republican base.

I am a Democrat who always votes a straight party line in general elections. I have only voted for two Republicans in my life. In the presidential election of 1988 I did not vote for president. In the Democrat primary of that year I voted for Michael Dukakis. By the general election Lee Atwater convinced me that I did not want to vote for a member of the ACLU who let Willie Horton out for a weekend furlough. I liked George H.W. Bush and his description of supply side economics at "Voodoo Economics." I disliked the fact that he choose to run as Ronald Reagan's running mate. During the Gulf War I thought Bush II handled the War better than anyone else who might have been president at the time.

Beginning in 1980 I viewed the religious right with interest and sympathy. I was a card carrying member of the Moral Majority. I subscribed to Jerry Falwell's magazine The Fundamentalist, although I have believed in evolution since I was a child. Later on I belonged to Pat Robertson's group The Christian Coalition.

The religious right never wanted to create a theocracy in the United States, similar to the Puritan theocracy in Massachusetts during the seventeenth century, or the theocracy of John Calvin in Switzerland. At most the religious right wanted to restore the moral ethos in the United States that prevailed during the 1950's. I was a child back then. It was a nice time to be a child. The divorce rate was low. The illegitimacy rate was much lower. Most Americans were affiliated with a church or synagogue.

Nevertheless, in a country like the United States there is little the government can do to influence sexual and religious behavior. This is how the religious right erred, and why it failed.

I am ambivalent about immigration. I like immigrants. I have been in love with a few. I appreciate the cultural diversity they contribute to American society. Nevertheless, by competing for jobs immigrants enable employers to cut wages. By competing for places to live immigrants enable landlords to raise rents. The Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which loosened restrictions on immigration, is a major cause of the growing income gap in the United States.

I agree with the Republican Party on the issues of crime and race. I agree with what Republican politicians say about immigration during campaigns. This is where we get to the intraparty war in the GOP: the Republican base wants more restrictions on immigration; the Republican Donor Class wants fewer restrictions.

For now I think Donald Trump will hold the Republican Party together. The Republican Donor Class appreciates the cuts in upper class taxation and the rise in stock market that happened under Trump. The Republican base likes what Trump has said about social issues (rather than how he has lived). What remains of the religious right likes what Trump has done to the Supreme Court. Blue collar Republicans like Trump's bully boy personality.

After Trump passes from the scene the GOP may continue to be united if it is led by a man who, like Trump, follows the Reagan Playbook. He will need to give rhetorical support to the social concerns of Republicans who are not rich, while making the rich richer.

 

[pecksniff]

I am ambivalent about immigration. I like immigrants. I have been in love with a few. I appreciate the cultural diversity they contribute to American society. Nevertheless, by competing for jobs immigrants enable employers to cut wages. By competing for places to live immigrants enable landlords to raise rents. The Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which loosened restrictions on immigration, is a major cause of the growing income gap in the United States.

There are a lot of myths about that. And W's 2007 immigration-reform proposal was at any rate entirely rational -- the base reaction to it was anything but -- all they could talk about was "amnesty" as if it were a bad word. The 11 million undocumented immigrants now in the U.S. are never going to be deported and it would disrupt the economy if they were; normalizing their status would be the most sensible thing to do. Those who opposed that appeared actually to be thinking about . . . factors other than economics.

 

[Paul_Chance]

On the one hand, there is the Old Guard, which was always pro-business-interests -- any other consideration, such as social conservatism, or border control, was secondary.

On the other hand, we have something even worse -- a nationalist-populist insurgency which began with Perot's Reform Party, morphed into the Tea Party, then into the Trump movement, and then into . . . whatever it will be after Trump has passed from the scene, but we can be sure it will survive in some form.

The power of the latter cannot be denied or ignored. The GOP gave up its last shred of credibility when its insurgent base scuttled W's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. This wing of the party represents the brain death of American civic life, but it is not going away. It also includes, or has the support of, the slowly fading religious right. (Slowly fading because of a generational decline in religious belief as such, but that's another discussion.)

But the Old Guard still has a lot of power behind it, the backing of mighty Powers That Be in corporate boardrooms, as well as a powerful network of astroturf organizations and economic-libertarian think-tanks and academic institutions and media outlets.

Who will win?

Ultimately the Old Guard wins.

It's in the nature (and history) of populist movements, whether they originate on the right or the left.

Populism has a couple of requirements to gain traction. First, it requires a leading figure (in the current wave, Trump). Historically, when that leader passes on - either through death, discrediting, or retirement, the secondary figures step forward, but in a dimished capacity and the movement peters out. Second, the main problem with populism runs into is their rhetoric tends toward the extremes - which they are unable to deliver at the end of run, leading to the gradual disillusionment of the followers.

The Old Guard ultimately wins because they're not tied to a specific figure, but rather a current that runs deeper and broader. The populist wages "once in a generation" conflict. The Old Guard runs intergenerational. The populist wins battles, maybe spectacular wins. The Old Guard wins the wars.

The same holds true whether they originate in the DNC (Obama) or the RNC (Trump). Now, overall populists rise and fall across years, but history moves in big sweeps and big cycles, often encompassing decades of won and lost battles and with, at the end of those big cycles, the scale tips a bit one way or the other way.

 

[The_Trouvere]

There are a lot of myths about that. And W's 2007 immigration-reform proposal was at any rate entirely rational -- the base reaction to it was anything but -- all they could talk about was "amnesty" as if it were a bad word. The 11 million undocumented immigrants now in the U.S. are never going to be deported and it would disrupt the economy if they were; normalizing their status would be the most sensible thing to do. Those who opposed that appeared actually to be thinking about . . . factors other than economics.

Any increase in the population has a depressing effect on wages and an inflationary effect on prices, especially the price of a place to live. Even when the U.S. population and standard of living increased together, as they did during the 1950's and 1960's, the standard of living would have increased more if the population was not growing, and still more if the population was shrinking - assuming of course that the population was not shrinking because of a devastating war. By killing nearly half the population of Europe, Bubonic Plague raised the standard of living of the survivors. This is not computer science. It is as simple as the law of supply and demand.