A Republican intellectual explains why the Republican Party is going to die

[ksen]

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy

The conservative movement has something of a founding myth — Roy calls it an “origin story.”

In 1955, William F. Buckley created the intellectual architecture of modern conservatism by founding National Review, focusing on a free market, social conservatism, and a muscular foreign policy. Buckley’s ideals found purchase in the Republican Party in 1964, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater. While Goldwater lost the 1964 general election, his ideas eventually won out in the GOP, culminating in the Reagan Revolution of 1980.

Normally, Goldwater’s defeat is spun as a story of triumph: how the conservative movement eventually righted the ship of an unprincipled GOP. But according to Roy, it’s the first act of a tragedy.

I know, I know . . . Vox. But I thought it was still a pretty good read.

I remember first reading some of Avik Roy's stuff about Obamacare and not liking it because it seemed too full of half-truths and misconceptions. But in this instance I think he has a point.

So, let's say he's right and a disruption is coming. Where do the intellectually rigorous conservatives go if the GOP ends up being beyond saving from white nationalism? Could they try to co-op the existing Libertarian Party to become the new not-racist center-right party?

 

[SimpleDon]

Yes, of course they could take over the Libertarian party, but why? It will be easier to take back the Republican party after Trump crashes and burns.

 

[Jaecp]

Could they try to co-op the existing Libertarian Party to become the new not-racist center-right party?

Nope, because we already have a center-right party in America and it's not the fucking Republicans

 

[untermensche]

Buckley "Conservatism" is really privilege of the wealthy.

And anti-Communism.

Part of it is very much alive.

Part of it has shifted to anti-Muslim hysteria to replace anti-Communist hysteria.

 

[SimpleDon]

And I disagree with his origin story of modern conservatism. It wasn't William F. Buckley who started it. We have always had conservatives in our political life, it is just that we had developed the good sense to ignore them. Their core philosophy of "no change" was becoming ever more irrelevant in a world where change was producing huge benefits.

What happened was that conservatism gained the sponsorship of a very powerful group, the very wealthy. The very wealthy realized that conservatives could be persuaded around to the very wealthy's political point of view, that, in a nutshell, the very wealthy deserved even more wealth. That conservatives were susceptible to such a ridiculous idea because conservatives relied on a constant stream of lies to convince themselves that they are right (as in correct) when it is obvious that they are wrong. The very wealthy also realized that they owned the media and that this was the perfect vehicle to use to spread the lies that would convince conservatives to support using the government to make the already rich even richer.

 

[marc]

Not a bad article, about a conservative intellectual slowly waking up to what has been obvious to everyone else. Reminds me of an article a few years ago of a conservative journalist coming to the realization that Palin was an idiot, and wondering if she was always an idiot and he just didn't see it.

“Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

some may have been in a bubble.. but not much of one considering how much dog whistle politics played a part in campaigns for decades. Think he might still be in denial.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Republican Party truly is a party that identifies with white Christian nationalism. That is in itself an intellectual problem, which is why it had better change or die.

But lets wait until after we've built the great wall of Trumpty Dumpty before we judge its fall.

There are lots of conservatives in my acquaintance. One exchange I always remember with someone who knew Sarah Palin personally. He said that she was kind and generous to a fault, but not very smart.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, of course they could take over the Libertarian party, but why? It will be easier to take back the Republican party after Trump crashes and burns.

I wish I could agree. The GOP mantra has been that the reason for the past losses at the POTUS level is that the candidates have not been conservative enough. Trump is not a conservative. If he loses (and I hope for every one's sake he does), I strongly suspect that the GOP pendulum will swing way to the right before it can return more to the center.

 

[SimpleDon]

Yes, of course they could take over the Libertarian party, but why? It will be easier to take back the Republican party after Trump crashes and burns.

I wish I could agree. The GOP mantra has been that the reason for the past losses at the POTUS level is that the candidates have not been conservative enough. Trump is not a conservative. If he loses (and I hope for every one's sake he does), I strongly suspect that the GOP pendulum will swing way to the right before it can return more to the center.

I have to say that you are right. That was the mantra after Romney lost that he wasn't conservative enough for the general election voters. Which is crazy, it assumes that there are independents and Democrats for whom the Republican party isn't conservative enough!

 

[Bronzeage]

I wish I could agree. The GOP mantra has been that the reason for the past losses at the POTUS level is that the candidates have not been conservative enough. Trump is not a conservative. If he loses (and I hope for every one's sake he does), I strongly suspect that the GOP pendulum will swing way to the right before it can return more to the center.

I have to say that you are right. That was the mantra after Romney lost that he wasn't conservative enough for the general election voters. Which is crazy, it assumes that there are independents and Democrats for whom the Republican party isn't conservative enough!

"Crazy" is a kind description.It's part of that special kind of cognitive dissonance that makes a person feel the only reason so few agree with them is because they haven't explained it well enough.

It's difficult to push a minority agenda. The first step is to gain control of one's own party. The GOP elite of the last generation decided the best way to gain control was to ally themselves with the religious right, and accept their social control through government power. This brought in the abortion and gay issues, something a true conservative would believe are not government concerns.

Once the religious right had a place at the table, Republican moderates were pushed out. They were labeled RINO's and worse. A true Republican had to be concerned with what women did with their uterus and what men did in their bedrooms.

The problem with pushing out moderates is there is no one left to say, "Yes, but...". When a loon like Trump comes along, there's no one to hold the middle. The base has been listening to lies for so long, they no longer can tell the difference.

 

[Deepak]

Yes, of course they could take over the Libertarian party, but why? It will be easier to take back the Republican party after Trump crashes and burns.

I wish I could agree. The GOP mantra has been that the reason for the past losses at the POTUS level is that the candidates have not been conservative enough. Trump is not a conservative. If he loses (and I hope for every one's sake he does), I strongly suspect that the GOP pendulum will swing way to the right before it can return more to the center.

The problem with this analogy is that a pendulum must have a period. It assumes a sense of order that hasn't really existed in the political landscape as far back as recorded history.

 

[laughing dog]

I wish I could agree. The GOP mantra has been that the reason for the past losses at the POTUS level is that the candidates have not been conservative enough. Trump is not a conservative. If he loses (and I hope for every one's sake he does), I strongly suspect that the GOP pendulum will swing way to the right before it can return more to the center.

The problem with this analogy is that a pendulum must have a period. It assumes a sense of order that hasn't really existed in the political landscape as far back as recorded history.

How about a chaotic pendulum?

 

[lpetrich]

CYCLES OF AMERICAN HISTORY -- several historians have proposed that US history moves in cycles, notably Arthurs Schlesinger Sr. and Jr.

US History Cycles - Liberal vs. Conservative -- the Schlesingers' cycle
Peter Turchin: US-History Cycles -- some more cycles
US History Cycles - Extroverted vs. Introverted foreign policy -- even more cycles

The Schlesinger cycle is an alternation between periods of liberalism and periods of conservatism. The liberal periods feature improving the status quo, broadening democracy, and public purpose, while the conservative periods feature preserving the status quo, containing democracy, and private interest. Conservative periods end because they accumulate problems that society's leaders are unwilling to do anything about, problems whose existence they are often unable or unwilling to accept. Liberal periods end because reform often involves a lot of effort that can be difficult to sustain, and because those reforms often have some success or even seem to go to far. Conservative periods can be useful for assimilating the reforms of previous liberal periods, and liberal-period reforms often survive. But conservative periods sometimes have regressions.

Here is what the Schlesingers had identified:

Lib: Creation of the Constitution 1776-1788, Con: Hamiltonian Federalism 1788-1800, Lib: Jeffersonianism 1800-1812, Con: Retreat after War of 1812 1812-1829, Lib: Jacksonian Democracy 1829-1841, Con: Domination of National Government by Slaveowners 1841-1861, Lib: Abolition of Slavery and Reconstruction 1861-1869, Con: The Gilded Age 1869-1901, Lib: The Progressive Era 1901-1919, Con: Republican Restoration 1919-1931, Lib: The New Deal 1931-1947, Con: The Eisenhower Era 1947-1962, Lib: Sixties Radicalism, Con: Gilded Age II 1978-

The most recent phase was named by me, however. It shows no sign of ending, despite the Occupy Wall Street movement, Bernie Sanders's Presidential candidacy, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Those may be signs of it coming to an end, but it's too early to tell.

-

As to the Republican Party, I don't think that it's doomed. But it would take being beaten rather badly to make it reform. Especially if Hillary Clinton wins and appoints some Supreme Court justices that abolish gerrymandering and the like. Also if the Left can get better midterm turnout.

 

[lpetrich]

Peter Turchin has proposed two cycles: a long-term one and a two-generation one.

The long-term one is in overall well-being as measured with a variety of indices. Its peaks were around 1825 and 1960, and its trough around 1900. We are currently headed for a trough that should happen around 2020.

In the peaks, relatively little of the US population was born abroad, wages were high relative to the GDP, health was relatively good, people tended to be optimistic about their prospects, there was relatively low wealth inequality, Congress was not very polarized, and there was relatively little sociopolitical strife.

In the troughs, a sizable fraction of the US population was born abroad, wages were low relative to the GDP, health was relatively bad, people tended to be pessimistic about their prospects, there was relatively high wealth inequality, Congress was very polarized, and there was a lot of sociopolitical strife.

The two-generation one is a period of intense strife that happens every two generations. There was one around 1870, one around 1920, one around 1970, and there should be one around 2020. There wasn't one around 1820, however, though 1770 would fit. It happens because the generation after the generation of rebels does not want to go through it, but that generation's successor generation has less memory and becomes much more willing to rebel.

-

The Klingberg foreign-policy cycle runs on a different clock, and it's a separate issue, I think.

 

[Canard DuJour]

“Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

like the gravitational centre of UK Tory party being Little Englander-ism. You eventually end up with Trump and Brexit.

Both are symptoms of the fundamental problem Conservative parties face : they must persuade the mass of people to vote against their own interests.

 

[SimpleDon]

“Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

like the gravitational centre of UK Tory party being Little Englander-ism. You eventually end up with Trump and Brexit.

Both are symptoms of the fundamental problem Conservative parties face : they must persuade the mass of people to vote against their own interests.

This is only a part of the problem. The conservatives gain traction because the more change that occurs the less tolerance there is for more change. The Conservative parties amplify this effect by attributing all of the changes that occur in society to the left leaning parties, which the left leaning parties are happy to, stupidly, take the credit or blame for.

The growing acceptance of homosexuality is an example of this. It is primarily due to the gays refusal to stay hidden in society. Once this reached a tipping point everyone in society realized that gays weren't the spawn of the devil but were our neighbors and our children. It is laudable that the left realized this simple fact first but it wasn't the left that caused the bigotry against gays to disappear.

Or look at the problem with ever escalating medical costs in the US. The corporations realized that this was a huge problem for the US. It is the major reason for the non-competitiveness of American products on the world market, because the corporations pay for the vast majority of the medical costs that aren't paid for by the government. The corporations also knew that they were even paying for the problem of so many people who didn't have healthcare insurance, because these people were being provided medical care purportedly for "free," but really by increasing the hospital and drug costs that the corporations were paying for their own employees.

But the corporations also knew that the main reason for the escalating medical costs was the conversion of the healthcare sector into a for profit business, the corporatization of the healthcare industry, if you will allow me. The business community and the wealthy people who owned the businesses had gained a lot from the myth that for profit business is more efficient and cost worthy than nonprofits and government. So they couldn't admit this in public and they certainly couldn't undercut the corporations that were making obscene profits now in the healthcare industry.

Presented with this dilemma the corporations turned to the Heritage Foundation to craft a corporate and profit friendly medical plan that would curb costs. The Heritage Foundation succeeded and the solution is obviously what is now known as ObamaCare, because once again, the left was more than happy to take the credit for a plan that they had almost no part in developing. Because ObamaCare can be described in short as let the government pay for the private, for profit insurance for the poor and for the obscene profits earned by the corporations involved in the privatization of the health care sector.

 

[RavenSky]

Reminds me of an article a few years ago of a conservative journalist coming to the realization that Palin was an idiot, and wondering if she was always an idiot and he just didn't see it.

He came to the realization? Like... it took more than two words out of her mouth for him to realize it? If you ever come across a link to that article, I'd love to read it.

 

[Trausti]

These prognostications of the Republicans' near and certain demise seem off. It's probably the Democrats who'd implode first. The Democrats look to have promoted identity politics über alles. Which could work for a time, focusing the enmity of disparate groups on a shared boogeyman, i.e., the cis white male. But when that boogeyman has been slayed, infighting is inevitable. It's nice to believe that people care about issues and vote only on issues, but ultimately people tend to vote for their own. See Singapore.

For example, Asian Americans have little in common with Black Americans other than both being arbitrarily labeled "people of color" (to contrast the cis white male). So assuming that they'd show solidarity when the cis white male is made irrelevant would be wrong - http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2594974.html Or, assuming Somalis would be content with a long-time Jewish state representative would also be wrong. Somalis want a Somali - http://www.startribune.com/caucus-chaos-raises-questions-for-somali-american-community/243874751/ And where a Black female Democrat is up against a Latina female Democrat, what are the chances that a voter's race will match up with the candidate's race? - http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-senate-loretta-sanchez-kamala-harris-president-obama-endorsement-20160722-snap-story.html

Nah. The Republicans will survive. The Democrats will eat themselves to death.

 

[zorq]

These prognostications of the Republicans' near and certain demise seem off. It's probably the Democrats who'd implode first. The Democrats look to have promoted identity politics . Which could work for a time, focusing the enmity of disparate groups on a shared boogeyman, i.e., the cis white male. But when that boogeyman has been slayed, infighting is inevitable. It's nice to believe that people care about issues and vote only on issues, but ultimately people tend to vote for their own. See Singapore.

Identity politics above all else? I don't think so. Dems stand for affordable healthcare, progressive taxes, fair wages for the working class and social justice. The cis White male is NOT the enemy of the Dems. The enemy of the Dems is the "Bigoted White Nationalists" and (ostensibly) the "Me First 1%." Those, of course, happen to be the only core demographics of the Republicans these days though which is exactly what the OP article is about. You have read the Dems completely wrong. Identity politics is only a big issue in the Bigoted White Nationalist media circles where that is one of their hobby-horses they love to hunt down and glorify.

 

[zorq]

Above I wrote "Bigoted White Nationalists" and I think that might get confused with what I should have written which is "Nationalist White Bigots."