Yes, that's the main idea, but one of the supporting reasons - "itтАЩs now mainstream for Republicans to always put party first" - is flawed, so it weakens the main idea.
I agree with the point that the Republican Party is polluted, corrupted, disrupted. I, too, disagree with framing this as a recent development. I see the rot starting with Nixon, continuing with Reagan, reaching a glorious climax with Trump.
I totally get that from the post - my point is this is not a "new" aspect of the Republican party. It has been deeply polluted for decades. The way it was written was as though this is a new and unforseen development with "normie" Republicans when this has been out in the open since Obama.
Except that Bill saw the light years ago and was a founder of The Bulwark. I do not understand why he continues to convey the actions and behaviors of Republicans as "new." It fosters this idea that we are at the start of the fight for liberal democracy, where we are surprised by people's positions, when we know the fight for liberal democracy is really at a do or die stage.
Yeah, he also deeply contributed to the mess. Arguably that's hus lifework ( neocon hawk gives Irak and Afghanistan, Reaganism gives pandering to the racist/nativist wings for votes, he also sank the public healthcare option under Clinton) . The asterisk is his wiki entry would be the Bulwark. Good for him, but it does not outweigh the way he paved the road to extremism with the other "normies"
What I consider to distinguish new from old GOP is that the new GOP declares victory regardless of any actual counting of votes, and does not forswear political violence. Historical policy disagreements pale in comparison.
"The Republican mainstream is deeply polluted." That's the whole point of the piece.
Yes, that's the main idea, but one of the supporting reasons - "itтАЩs now mainstream for Republicans to always put party first" - is flawed, so it weakens the main idea.
And it has been for 20 years. You guys just didnтАЩt want to see/acknowledge it.
I agree with the point that the Republican Party is polluted, corrupted, disrupted. I, too, disagree with framing this as a recent development. I see the rot starting with Nixon, continuing with Reagan, reaching a glorious climax with Trump.
Right I think Bush 1 and Romney were normal and while wanted to do right by the country, but not enough Republicans wanted what they were selling.
I totally get that from the post - my point is this is not a "new" aspect of the Republican party. It has been deeply polluted for decades. The way it was written was as though this is a new and unforseen development with "normie" Republicans when this has been out in the open since Obama.
But if long-time normie Republicans now see the light, they do.
Except that Bill saw the light years ago and was a founder of The Bulwark. I do not understand why he continues to convey the actions and behaviors of Republicans as "new." It fosters this idea that we are at the start of the fight for liberal democracy, where we are surprised by people's positions, when we know the fight for liberal democracy is really at a do or die stage.
Really well said, Jeff.
Yeah, he also deeply contributed to the mess. Arguably that's hus lifework ( neocon hawk gives Irak and Afghanistan, Reaganism gives pandering to the racist/nativist wings for votes, he also sank the public healthcare option under Clinton) . The asterisk is his wiki entry would be the Bulwark. Good for him, but it does not outweigh the way he paved the road to extremism with the other "normies"
What I consider to distinguish new from old GOP is that the new GOP declares victory regardless of any actual counting of votes, and does not forswear political violence. Historical policy disagreements pale in comparison.