The "normal" GOP set the stage for the MAGA movement, and neoconservatives could help restore our democracy by telling the truth about what they did (Part 1 of a 2-part post)
I think basically you've got the heart of it. All of these guys are trying to avoid the obvious move in this case, which is to either re-register as Democrats for the time being or to form a third party. They know that either move puts them on the fringes of political power for the foreseeable future, so what they're really hoping is that somehow, some way, Trump's GOP gets absolutely destroyed at the ballot box and they can step in to steer it back to slightly constrained demogoguery instead. But 2020 was a clear demonstration that if you play with populist ressentiment and fascist themes while thinking you're holding the reins, you end up awakening something you can't control.
I agree completely. And were they to become Democrats, we would then be back in. New Deal-Fair Deal position, in which the biggest, and growing, obstacles to reform will be within our own party.
Just discovered this writer and am willing to give her a a good extended read. I read the entire Kagan piece and associated commentary on mainstream and conservative outlets. The “Junkie”s take on it is predictable given her alcove at the New School but engaging at the least. I disagree with several aspects of her analysis and historical interpretations. As well her flat out generalizations of the Republican Party and American history in general. The economic analysis is classic progressive and would find warm embrace in various zip codes of Manhattan and Brooklyn. But I do appreciate the effort to analyze and respond to Kagan who is doing the nation a public service warning us to the risk that we are facing. That this escapes the writer is just part of my problem with the piece.
Hey Charles: thanks for joining us, and I appreciate people who want to start a good solid debate. You are right--the economic analysis is solid progressive. But it also comes out of my reading of libertarian and national populist literature, which--irregardless of major differences--does represent a right-wing position that is far closer to progressives in its analysis, and was successfully marginalized by and in some ways integrated into the GOP successfully before Trump.
And I think what future historians will say is that it is populists, whose votes were recruited by Reagan and both Bushes, but delivered nothing, that built the platform for Trumpism. And Kagan is wrong that Trump didn't deliver: he set the deadline for leaving Afghanistan and took a hard line against immigration. He was explicit about saying often that white people were getting a raw deal. He banned trans people from the military. Rightly or wrongly, these are foundational beliefs among national populists. In addition, when I was canvassing for Warren in New Hampshire, I talked to endless numbers of white small business people (and this may also account for the rise in support among Black men) who believed that Trump's China policy had helped their businesses rebound. One guy told me that because cheap appliances made in China were no longer so available and were more expensive, people were fixing old appliances--he had opened a second shop and hired ten new workers between 2017 and 2020.
If you are up for a fun read, take my book, Political Junkies, out of the library, and take a look at my chapters on Ron Paul and the emergence of the Tea Party. That's the thinking I did to get to this place. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Thank you for your prompt thoughtful response. As a sometime Republican presidential voter(Reagan/McCain) but mainly Democratic, I’ve watched the dissolution of the GOP with detached disappointment and increasing fear and anger. It’s not the same party that I supported in the late 80’s and early 90’s. I would argue against your description of Bush world as increasingly populist and absolutely believe that the Tea folks started us down this spiral of populist garbage throwing post 2008/9. Also, no doubt that a black President in 2008 stirred the pot in important ways that would not have with a milquetoast white guy. Trump will go down as among the 3 worst Presidents and the most dangerous which is why I believe Kagan. Trump delivered very little to his 2016 base except for angry rhetoric your small business example notwithstanding. I have hundreds of small business clients who made money in 2015 and 2018. They liked his lib owning and low taxes. That’s it. The history of this period that my grandson’s generation will read will be one focused on how very close we came, and still may come, to a constitutional meltdown.
Claire, so important to address Kagan. The big “tell” was his denying the racist Southern Strategy that began with Nixon and culminated in Insurrectionists citing threats to White identity dominance as their motive not love of Trump. Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia MI where the civil rights workers were killed and spoke of States Rights. And of course there is full denial of how the Baker (now anti-Trump) with his thugs prevented the counting of ballots in FL where Gore surely won. The vital lesson here for us though seems to lie equally in the Democrats full refusal to call it what it is. In 2000 and now. The founding fathers not foreseeing a cult leader is a laughable argument indeed—they were willing to establish a Senate that let rural slave owners rule and give those folks the power to prevent any constitutional change. So calling on their intentions as you suggest is simply an ideological move to shore up the legitimacy of the GOP that has been—judging here by merely liberal standards—absent since Nixon secretly sabotaged LBJ’s peace efforts to win his own election and continue the war, slaughtering with no compunction. Again it’s the Democrats who usually fail in this propaganda war that should be hard to lose.
Yes: it is this rhetorical strategy of partial truths--which then are actual lies-- that is so insidious in relation to critical-minded independents and liberals.
I think basically you've got the heart of it. All of these guys are trying to avoid the obvious move in this case, which is to either re-register as Democrats for the time being or to form a third party. They know that either move puts them on the fringes of political power for the foreseeable future, so what they're really hoping is that somehow, some way, Trump's GOP gets absolutely destroyed at the ballot box and they can step in to steer it back to slightly constrained demogoguery instead. But 2020 was a clear demonstration that if you play with populist ressentiment and fascist themes while thinking you're holding the reins, you end up awakening something you can't control.
I agree completely. And were they to become Democrats, we would then be back in. New Deal-Fair Deal position, in which the biggest, and growing, obstacles to reform will be within our own party.
Just discovered this writer and am willing to give her a a good extended read. I read the entire Kagan piece and associated commentary on mainstream and conservative outlets. The “Junkie”s take on it is predictable given her alcove at the New School but engaging at the least. I disagree with several aspects of her analysis and historical interpretations. As well her flat out generalizations of the Republican Party and American history in general. The economic analysis is classic progressive and would find warm embrace in various zip codes of Manhattan and Brooklyn. But I do appreciate the effort to analyze and respond to Kagan who is doing the nation a public service warning us to the risk that we are facing. That this escapes the writer is just part of my problem with the piece.
Hey Charles: thanks for joining us, and I appreciate people who want to start a good solid debate. You are right--the economic analysis is solid progressive. But it also comes out of my reading of libertarian and national populist literature, which--irregardless of major differences--does represent a right-wing position that is far closer to progressives in its analysis, and was successfully marginalized by and in some ways integrated into the GOP successfully before Trump.
And I think what future historians will say is that it is populists, whose votes were recruited by Reagan and both Bushes, but delivered nothing, that built the platform for Trumpism. And Kagan is wrong that Trump didn't deliver: he set the deadline for leaving Afghanistan and took a hard line against immigration. He was explicit about saying often that white people were getting a raw deal. He banned trans people from the military. Rightly or wrongly, these are foundational beliefs among national populists. In addition, when I was canvassing for Warren in New Hampshire, I talked to endless numbers of white small business people (and this may also account for the rise in support among Black men) who believed that Trump's China policy had helped their businesses rebound. One guy told me that because cheap appliances made in China were no longer so available and were more expensive, people were fixing old appliances--he had opened a second shop and hired ten new workers between 2017 and 2020.
If you are up for a fun read, take my book, Political Junkies, out of the library, and take a look at my chapters on Ron Paul and the emergence of the Tea Party. That's the thinking I did to get to this place. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Thank you for your prompt thoughtful response. As a sometime Republican presidential voter(Reagan/McCain) but mainly Democratic, I’ve watched the dissolution of the GOP with detached disappointment and increasing fear and anger. It’s not the same party that I supported in the late 80’s and early 90’s. I would argue against your description of Bush world as increasingly populist and absolutely believe that the Tea folks started us down this spiral of populist garbage throwing post 2008/9. Also, no doubt that a black President in 2008 stirred the pot in important ways that would not have with a milquetoast white guy. Trump will go down as among the 3 worst Presidents and the most dangerous which is why I believe Kagan. Trump delivered very little to his 2016 base except for angry rhetoric your small business example notwithstanding. I have hundreds of small business clients who made money in 2015 and 2018. They liked his lib owning and low taxes. That’s it. The history of this period that my grandson’s generation will read will be one focused on how very close we came, and still may come, to a constitutional meltdown.
Did you mean September 2021 for Kagan's NYT piece?
I did--what a nitwit I am. Not even sure how an October date popped up.
And thank you!
Claire, so important to address Kagan. The big “tell” was his denying the racist Southern Strategy that began with Nixon and culminated in Insurrectionists citing threats to White identity dominance as their motive not love of Trump. Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia MI where the civil rights workers were killed and spoke of States Rights. And of course there is full denial of how the Baker (now anti-Trump) with his thugs prevented the counting of ballots in FL where Gore surely won. The vital lesson here for us though seems to lie equally in the Democrats full refusal to call it what it is. In 2000 and now. The founding fathers not foreseeing a cult leader is a laughable argument indeed—they were willing to establish a Senate that let rural slave owners rule and give those folks the power to prevent any constitutional change. So calling on their intentions as you suggest is simply an ideological move to shore up the legitimacy of the GOP that has been—judging here by merely liberal standards—absent since Nixon secretly sabotaged LBJ’s peace efforts to win his own election and continue the war, slaughtering with no compunction. Again it’s the Democrats who usually fail in this propaganda war that should be hard to lose.
Yes: it is this rhetorical strategy of partial truths--which then are actual lies-- that is so insidious in relation to critical-minded independents and liberals.