I think you've hit several points squarely. But where I'd differ/qualify things... One of the common problems with these sorts of analyses (from left or right), and, especially lately, is that they tend to imbue malice to the other side. "It's all about the cruelty" is a constant refrain. Or, in your case "...voters would accept anything…
I think you've hit several points squarely. But where I'd differ/qualify things...
One of the common problems with these sorts of analyses (from left or right), and, especially lately, is that they tend to imbue malice to the other side. "It's all about the cruelty" is a constant refrain. Or, in your case "...voters would accept anything so long as it hurt the right people..". I suspect this thinking is wrong in terms of the primary motivation. While it does seem (especially lately) to morph into a gratuitous cruelty, I think the primary motivation is a sense of fairness (really entitlement). White grievance comes from a sense of loss, of being left behind. It's not fair
- note well how often Trump uses that language. And so on.
The other driving factor is the *need* for an "other". As many conservative writers themselves will acknowledge, the American right, in particular, needs a common enemy to push back against. The cold war was great for keeping the conservative factions allied. But who can play that role now? Well, it seems it's us.
BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.
But I think you are spot on in terms of resentment of the GOP elites. The sense that those squishy RINOs failed much of the electorate. Also, that so much of America has been drilled in "gov't always bad" thinking for decades. It feeds directly into populist thinking.
Who can play the role of "other" now, in place of the communists? The obvious answer is that communists could still play that role, starting with the heirs of Mao and Stalin, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The only reason that's not happening is because the GOP feels compelled to cover up for Trump's corrupt ties to those and other foreign dictators.
I think this is a prime exhibit for hypothesis 2 - it's all contingent. GOP foreign policy is being driven by Trump's personal corruption, not by any coherent, comprehensive political strategy, theory, or movement. If Trump had owed money to the Saudis rather than the Russians, his foreign policy might have looked more like that of the Bush-Cheney administration.
I half agree. On the one hand, we've seen that motivated reasoning can dominate groups. Even to the point of blatant 180s on subjects.
That said, my guess is that the current GOP flip-flop on Russia isn't simply about covering for Trump's corruption (entanglements in Russia). That could be a factor, but it's more likely emotionally driven by opposition. The Dems are very anti-Russia now, so, therefore, Tucker, et al, kinda like Russia. The entanglements serve to strengthen the knee-jerk opposition. This became obvious with the Mueller investigation. I doubt there's a conservative around that hasn't derisively spouted "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
“BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.”
“Constructive optimistic conservatism” can never get traction if the party is always selling nostalgia for a past that is better than the future could possibly be.
I think you've hit several points squarely. But where I'd differ/qualify things...
One of the common problems with these sorts of analyses (from left or right), and, especially lately, is that they tend to imbue malice to the other side. "It's all about the cruelty" is a constant refrain. Or, in your case "...voters would accept anything so long as it hurt the right people..". I suspect this thinking is wrong in terms of the primary motivation. While it does seem (especially lately) to morph into a gratuitous cruelty, I think the primary motivation is a sense of fairness (really entitlement). White grievance comes from a sense of loss, of being left behind. It's not fair
- note well how often Trump uses that language. And so on.
The other driving factor is the *need* for an "other". As many conservative writers themselves will acknowledge, the American right, in particular, needs a common enemy to push back against. The cold war was great for keeping the conservative factions allied. But who can play that role now? Well, it seems it's us.
BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.
But I think you are spot on in terms of resentment of the GOP elites. The sense that those squishy RINOs failed much of the electorate. Also, that so much of America has been drilled in "gov't always bad" thinking for decades. It feeds directly into populist thinking.
Who can play the role of "other" now, in place of the communists? The obvious answer is that communists could still play that role, starting with the heirs of Mao and Stalin, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The only reason that's not happening is because the GOP feels compelled to cover up for Trump's corrupt ties to those and other foreign dictators.
I think this is a prime exhibit for hypothesis 2 - it's all contingent. GOP foreign policy is being driven by Trump's personal corruption, not by any coherent, comprehensive political strategy, theory, or movement. If Trump had owed money to the Saudis rather than the Russians, his foreign policy might have looked more like that of the Bush-Cheney administration.
I half agree. On the one hand, we've seen that motivated reasoning can dominate groups. Even to the point of blatant 180s on subjects.
That said, my guess is that the current GOP flip-flop on Russia isn't simply about covering for Trump's corruption (entanglements in Russia). That could be a factor, but it's more likely emotionally driven by opposition. The Dems are very anti-Russia now, so, therefore, Tucker, et al, kinda like Russia. The entanglements serve to strengthen the knee-jerk opposition. This became obvious with the Mueller investigation. I doubt there's a conservative around that hasn't derisively spouted "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
“BTW, I think it's no coincidence that attempts at "constructive optimistic conservativism" don't seem to get traction. Whether Jack Kemp or W's compassionate conservativism, it never seemed to get the base all excited.”
“Constructive optimistic conservatism” can never get traction if the party is always selling nostalgia for a past that is better than the future could possibly be.