It was all a lie, but not the lie Stuart Stevens refers to, i.e. it was always about race. No, what it was about what was satisfying a wealthy donor class that wanted lower taxes and limiting non-security related spending, starting in the 60s and really coming to total domination by the 1990s and the Gingrich era. I say this because what Republicans in the modern era are not flexible on, the non-negotiable policy is lowering taxes, shrinking the non-security parts of government, or other economic policies that favor the very wealthy regardless of whether they benefit others (note, this does not include actually avoiding deficits). Republicans have demonstrated they are in fact flexible on racial issues, on cultural issues, on religious issues, on foreign policy, both rhetorically and substantively. They are quite willing to run up deficits. They are flexible rhetorically a la some tepid forays like TFG's or Rubio's into populist, working class rhetoric, but not substantively on taxes and spending, and that is the big clue as the real driving factor behind their behavior. That is, the one principle they do not violate. The specific path they took to where we are in 2023 is contingent on a number of factors, but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population, and probably in most cases the country as a whole, yet win national majorities.
Reagan was free to denounce racism, while other Republicans were free to cater to white grievance, as their political circumstances dictated. They could be hawkish or isolationist. Social conservative or libertarian, the tent was big enough. What they could not do is raise taxes.
Why is Reagan remembered so much more warmly than George HW Bush? HW actually successfully oversaw the far more difficult process of winning the Cold War by helping manage the actual collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire in a peaceful manner. He won the Iraq War and managed a vast international alliance to do so. His cardinal sin was denouncing supply-side economics as voodoo and supporting a tax hike, resulting in a third-party challenge by a plutocrat who was forced to pay higher taxes, Perot's actual reasons for running being incidental. Even if he was personally sincere, how many other angry plutocrats were whispering in his ear and why?
It was pretty clear by '09 that Republicans didn't actually care much about deficits or shrinking govt. spending as a whole, and it was pretty clear the economic system wasn't doing much for the little guy. Wages were stagnant, increases in GDP were almost all being captured by the wealthiest, and public services and infrastructure were declining, from schools, to roads, to water. It had become ever more clear since the 1980s than supply-side economics didn't work and increased deficits, and Republicans had overseen massive deficit increases without much complaint, up to and including Cheney's comment that Reagan proved deficits don't matter (politically). It was getting harder and harder to argue the economic plans were helping the little guy, but the economic plans couldn't be changed or disavowed. The Iraq War blunders had left foreign policy not exactly a strength, and foreign policy wasn't really an election winner in any case. What to do?
Well, with a black president and changing demographics, racial grievances became a lot more useful in distracting people from the economic reality. They were so emotionally committed to the grievance they would happily swallow alternative facts on everything else. And consider the outrageous, the over-the-top lies and distortions about Obamacare, the death panels. Every other developed country has some form of national health care or or national health insurance plan. Their per capita medical costs are substantially lower than the US with on average better outcomes. If you've got the money, you're free to buy the best care money can buy at home or abroad. It would help many of your constituents. Rectify inefficient and wasteful medical spending. Lower medical costs for the nation as a whole. Why was this the hill to die on?
It broke their one rule.
Even then, post-Romney, the autopsy calling for greater outreach to new groups of voters, not increased focus on racial grievance, because that hadn't worked. And that was fine, just fine. But TFG came out of nowhere and demonstrated that with the right mix of racial and cultural grievance, that was the winning combination. Why, you could even preach a populist economic message, you could denounce business, you could promise to spend on infrastructure, you could even play protectionist. The rubes would, in fact, fall for it. And as a demonstrated winning formula, that's the road they chose. As long as Putin wasn't preaching communism, let him have Ukraine. Why, as long as he doesn't actually practice communism, a reconciliation with Xi and China is in the cards if that's politically expedient. As long as no one breaks the one rule.
Have you actually read Stuart StevensтАЩ book? If you have, then maybe you need to read it again because racism is really just the first chapter (though there are references elsewhere). When he says тАЬit was *all* a lie - he literally means *all* of it - including the lie about fealty to tax cuts aa a reflection about deeply held values about fiscal responsibility (chapter 3) which cover much of the same ground you do here. He also discusses the тАЬlieтАЭ about a deep commitment to тАЬfamily valuesтАЭ (chapter 2) and the lie about тАЬPatriotismтАЭ and defending democracy abroad (chapter 7). It was *all* a lie backs up every claim it makes with overwhelming support (I know because I looked up every footnote and original source I could access). But the most important point is that it wasnтАЩt written by a Democrat but someone who spent his entire career (which is probably longer than JVL has been alive) working for Republicans. If you canтАЩt bring yourself to completely buy in to his opinion, it might be because itтАЩs incredibly disconcerting to come to terms with the fact that the party and the principles and the political heroes you supported for so long were largely an illusion - a тАЬmind palaceтАЭ built on sand.
It was all a lie. I haven't read Stevens' book, but I agree that the claim of fiscal responsibility was a lie, as well as the other items you cite. But the fealty to tax cuts of the top rates is definitely a thing. Follow the money. The only immutable Republican/Conservative principles are those benefitting the wealthy. Everything else is negotiable based on whether it aids in gaining the power to achieve that goal.
Recognizing that racism was just a strategy rather than a core principle does not minimize the culpability for the extent to which the Conservative movement and the Republican party fanned an appeal to it in order to win elections. It is and was deplorable. It just wasn't largely what the establishment was focused on, other than to win elections. On the other hand, for their voters, sure. That's how the party cultivated them.
Stevens makes the same point about fealty to tax cuts of the top rates as almost the only thing Republicans were unwilling to compromise on. So forgive me for being unclear. He just says that it didnтАЩt really reflect seriousness about fiscal responsibility because you canтАЩt have massive tax cuts while also increasing spending by something like 186%. People think of Reagan as some great fiscal conservative but he ranks among the top 4 or 5 Presidents who were responsible for ballooning the federal deficit. In fact, he started that ball rolling! And unlike FDR who was fighting a massive Depression and a World War or Obama who had inherited the worst economic crisis of the time as well as two ongoing wars, ReaganтАЩs main issue was a Cold War. And we can argue whether or not that merited the huge increase in military spending but it has been a feature to increase it ever since - whether in peace time or in war.
The only Republican President after that who was serious about fiscal policy and called ReaganтАЩs trickle down economics тАЬvoodoo economicsтАЭ was George HW Bush who was correct as history would bear out. His biggest sin was compromising with Democrats so he could cut spending by increasing taxes. And he was destroyed for it - by both the right and the left!
Even though because of what he had accomplished, Clinton was able to leave the White House with a budget surplus instead of a deficit! And instead of being praised for that by Republicans who claimed to care about fiscal responsibility, he was constantly maligned by Newt Gingrich for silly things like increasing spending for food stamps by something like an extra $2000/year.
This may sound like I support progressive policies like massive government spending and drenching the rich in taxes which I donтАЩt! I believe in trying to balance budgets and bring down our federal debt to a number my brain has the capacity to conceive. After reading StevensтАЩ book (which is fantastic and you really should read!) I no longer believe that most Republicans leaders and voters - especially after Reagan ever sincerely believed in actual fiscal responsibility.
They love to raise a hue and cry about entitlement reform or repealing Obamacare or bailing out banks or Covid stimulus checks or student debt relief (much of which theyтАЩre justified on) but have they ever proposed a serious plan to curb spending on these of these issues?!?! Even when they controlled the WH and both houses of congress? No! Because these things are not popular with the base.
The only cards they play are cutting taxes while increasing spending, rolling back regulations and petty fights about the debt ceiling.
Then predictably they blame Democrats for being тАЬfiscally irresponsibleтАЭ, not doing enough to prevent pandemics and train disasters and bank collapses which were are systems that probably should be regulated based on the domino effect their failures cause. And somehow convincing voters that raising the debt ceiling is a тАЬresponsibleтАЭ thing to do instead a fancy term for defaulting on loans, decreasing our credit rating and throwing the markets in to a mass panic.
Sincere belief in fiscal responsibility? Yeah - it was all a lie.
Makes sense. But I highly recommend it! IтАЩll admit learning about some of the behind the scenes details came as a bit of a shock (which is why I felt compelled to check the references) but itтАЩs always helpful to understand the roots of a problem if youтАЩre serious about trying to solve it.
My only quibble (if you can call it that) is that the last chapter is entitled тАЬHow Lies EndтАЭ and while it does give a shout out to people like Mona Charen and Bill Kristol, itтАЩs mostly an expression of despair for what the Republican Party has become and doesnтАЩt offer many concrete solutions about changing it. So just up to places like the Bulwark I guess and the people who support them. I pray to God there are enough of us.
I also never understood while GHW Bush didn't get more credit as a president, and I totally buy your "he broke the rule" logic. Reagan told them to tear down the wall, Bush made sure they actually did it!
You tell us, "but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population."
Good point, but we know how they sell this to the base; white grievance.
Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance.
When we follow the links in your analysis, it actually supports Stevens' thesis.
"Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance."
Exactly. That is *why* the party of Lincoln traded voters with the party of the Confederacy. To gain the seats of power in order to feed the rich and bleed the poor, as you said.
It was all a lie, but not the lie Stuart Stevens refers to, i.e. it was always about race. No, what it was about what was satisfying a wealthy donor class that wanted lower taxes and limiting non-security related spending, starting in the 60s and really coming to total domination by the 1990s and the Gingrich era. I say this because what Republicans in the modern era are not flexible on, the non-negotiable policy is lowering taxes, shrinking the non-security parts of government, or other economic policies that favor the very wealthy regardless of whether they benefit others (note, this does not include actually avoiding deficits). Republicans have demonstrated they are in fact flexible on racial issues, on cultural issues, on religious issues, on foreign policy, both rhetorically and substantively. They are quite willing to run up deficits. They are flexible rhetorically a la some tepid forays like TFG's or Rubio's into populist, working class rhetoric, but not substantively on taxes and spending, and that is the big clue as the real driving factor behind their behavior. That is, the one principle they do not violate. The specific path they took to where we are in 2023 is contingent on a number of factors, but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population, and probably in most cases the country as a whole, yet win national majorities.
Reagan was free to denounce racism, while other Republicans were free to cater to white grievance, as their political circumstances dictated. They could be hawkish or isolationist. Social conservative or libertarian, the tent was big enough. What they could not do is raise taxes.
Why is Reagan remembered so much more warmly than George HW Bush? HW actually successfully oversaw the far more difficult process of winning the Cold War by helping manage the actual collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire in a peaceful manner. He won the Iraq War and managed a vast international alliance to do so. His cardinal sin was denouncing supply-side economics as voodoo and supporting a tax hike, resulting in a third-party challenge by a plutocrat who was forced to pay higher taxes, Perot's actual reasons for running being incidental. Even if he was personally sincere, how many other angry plutocrats were whispering in his ear and why?
It was pretty clear by '09 that Republicans didn't actually care much about deficits or shrinking govt. spending as a whole, and it was pretty clear the economic system wasn't doing much for the little guy. Wages were stagnant, increases in GDP were almost all being captured by the wealthiest, and public services and infrastructure were declining, from schools, to roads, to water. It had become ever more clear since the 1980s than supply-side economics didn't work and increased deficits, and Republicans had overseen massive deficit increases without much complaint, up to and including Cheney's comment that Reagan proved deficits don't matter (politically). It was getting harder and harder to argue the economic plans were helping the little guy, but the economic plans couldn't be changed or disavowed. The Iraq War blunders had left foreign policy not exactly a strength, and foreign policy wasn't really an election winner in any case. What to do?
Well, with a black president and changing demographics, racial grievances became a lot more useful in distracting people from the economic reality. They were so emotionally committed to the grievance they would happily swallow alternative facts on everything else. And consider the outrageous, the over-the-top lies and distortions about Obamacare, the death panels. Every other developed country has some form of national health care or or national health insurance plan. Their per capita medical costs are substantially lower than the US with on average better outcomes. If you've got the money, you're free to buy the best care money can buy at home or abroad. It would help many of your constituents. Rectify inefficient and wasteful medical spending. Lower medical costs for the nation as a whole. Why was this the hill to die on?
It broke their one rule.
Even then, post-Romney, the autopsy calling for greater outreach to new groups of voters, not increased focus on racial grievance, because that hadn't worked. And that was fine, just fine. But TFG came out of nowhere and demonstrated that with the right mix of racial and cultural grievance, that was the winning combination. Why, you could even preach a populist economic message, you could denounce business, you could promise to spend on infrastructure, you could even play protectionist. The rubes would, in fact, fall for it. And as a demonstrated winning formula, that's the road they chose. As long as Putin wasn't preaching communism, let him have Ukraine. Why, as long as he doesn't actually practice communism, a reconciliation with Xi and China is in the cards if that's politically expedient. As long as no one breaks the one rule.
Have you actually read Stuart StevensтАЩ book? If you have, then maybe you need to read it again because racism is really just the first chapter (though there are references elsewhere). When he says тАЬit was *all* a lie - he literally means *all* of it - including the lie about fealty to tax cuts aa a reflection about deeply held values about fiscal responsibility (chapter 3) which cover much of the same ground you do here. He also discusses the тАЬlieтАЭ about a deep commitment to тАЬfamily valuesтАЭ (chapter 2) and the lie about тАЬPatriotismтАЭ and defending democracy abroad (chapter 7). It was *all* a lie backs up every claim it makes with overwhelming support (I know because I looked up every footnote and original source I could access). But the most important point is that it wasnтАЩt written by a Democrat but someone who spent his entire career (which is probably longer than JVL has been alive) working for Republicans. If you canтАЩt bring yourself to completely buy in to his opinion, it might be because itтАЩs incredibly disconcerting to come to terms with the fact that the party and the principles and the political heroes you supported for so long were largely an illusion - a тАЬmind palaceтАЭ built on sand.
It was all a lie. I haven't read Stevens' book, but I agree that the claim of fiscal responsibility was a lie, as well as the other items you cite. But the fealty to tax cuts of the top rates is definitely a thing. Follow the money. The only immutable Republican/Conservative principles are those benefitting the wealthy. Everything else is negotiable based on whether it aids in gaining the power to achieve that goal.
Recognizing that racism was just a strategy rather than a core principle does not minimize the culpability for the extent to which the Conservative movement and the Republican party fanned an appeal to it in order to win elections. It is and was deplorable. It just wasn't largely what the establishment was focused on, other than to win elections. On the other hand, for their voters, sure. That's how the party cultivated them.
Stevens makes the same point about fealty to tax cuts of the top rates as almost the only thing Republicans were unwilling to compromise on. So forgive me for being unclear. He just says that it didnтАЩt really reflect seriousness about fiscal responsibility because you canтАЩt have massive tax cuts while also increasing spending by something like 186%. People think of Reagan as some great fiscal conservative but he ranks among the top 4 or 5 Presidents who were responsible for ballooning the federal deficit. In fact, he started that ball rolling! And unlike FDR who was fighting a massive Depression and a World War or Obama who had inherited the worst economic crisis of the time as well as two ongoing wars, ReaganтАЩs main issue was a Cold War. And we can argue whether or not that merited the huge increase in military spending but it has been a feature to increase it ever since - whether in peace time or in war.
The only Republican President after that who was serious about fiscal policy and called ReaganтАЩs trickle down economics тАЬvoodoo economicsтАЭ was George HW Bush who was correct as history would bear out. His biggest sin was compromising with Democrats so he could cut spending by increasing taxes. And he was destroyed for it - by both the right and the left!
Even though because of what he had accomplished, Clinton was able to leave the White House with a budget surplus instead of a deficit! And instead of being praised for that by Republicans who claimed to care about fiscal responsibility, he was constantly maligned by Newt Gingrich for silly things like increasing spending for food stamps by something like an extra $2000/year.
This may sound like I support progressive policies like massive government spending and drenching the rich in taxes which I donтАЩt! I believe in trying to balance budgets and bring down our federal debt to a number my brain has the capacity to conceive. After reading StevensтАЩ book (which is fantastic and you really should read!) I no longer believe that most Republicans leaders and voters - especially after Reagan ever sincerely believed in actual fiscal responsibility.
They love to raise a hue and cry about entitlement reform or repealing Obamacare or bailing out banks or Covid stimulus checks or student debt relief (much of which theyтАЩre justified on) but have they ever proposed a serious plan to curb spending on these of these issues?!?! Even when they controlled the WH and both houses of congress? No! Because these things are not popular with the base.
The only cards they play are cutting taxes while increasing spending, rolling back regulations and petty fights about the debt ceiling.
Then predictably they blame Democrats for being тАЬfiscally irresponsibleтАЭ, not doing enough to prevent pandemics and train disasters and bank collapses which were are systems that probably should be regulated based on the domino effect their failures cause. And somehow convincing voters that raising the debt ceiling is a тАЬresponsibleтАЭ thing to do instead a fancy term for defaulting on loans, decreasing our credit rating and throwing the markets in to a mass panic.
Sincere belief in fiscal responsibility? Yeah - it was all a lie.
You tell us, "recognizing that racism was just a strategy rather than a core principle"
If racism is a strategy, then that 'strategizer' is devoid of principle.
This leaves us with racism as the defining feature.
For sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
I had read the book when it first came out but forgot that it had covered more than race. Thanks for the helpful review.
I have not read his book and was basing my characterization of it purely on JVL's remarks.
Makes sense. But I highly recommend it! IтАЩll admit learning about some of the behind the scenes details came as a bit of a shock (which is why I felt compelled to check the references) but itтАЩs always helpful to understand the roots of a problem if youтАЩre serious about trying to solve it.
My only quibble (if you can call it that) is that the last chapter is entitled тАЬHow Lies EndтАЭ and while it does give a shout out to people like Mona Charen and Bill Kristol, itтАЩs mostly an expression of despair for what the Republican Party has become and doesnтАЩt offer many concrete solutions about changing it. So just up to places like the Bulwark I guess and the people who support them. I pray to God there are enough of us.
Standing ovation!
I also never understood while GHW Bush didn't get more credit as a president, and I totally buy your "he broke the rule" logic. Reagan told them to tear down the wall, Bush made sure they actually did it!
You nailed it. I wish I could have expressed it as well as you did.
You tell us, "but the fundamental question of Republican politics has always been how to justify economic policies that are ruinous to the majority of the population."
Good point, but we know how they sell this to the base; white grievance.
Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance.
When we follow the links in your analysis, it actually supports Stevens' thesis.
"Even if the actual insidious aim of the folks behind the red curtain is to feed the rich and bleed the poor, the avenue to reach that goal is a politics that centers white grievance."
Exactly. That is *why* the party of Lincoln traded voters with the party of the Confederacy. To gain the seats of power in order to feed the rich and bleed the poor, as you said.
White Grievance robs the bank, but Rich and Corporate is the mastermind.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this statement.
It might have been too obscure even for my obscure mind! I was agreeing with you: The rich and corporate use white-grievance politics to rob us.
Point well taken.
Much obliged, David, have a good day.
This analysis completely forget the actual organizing of the GOP from 1968 til now.
If white grievance was not a core organizing principle from Goldwater on, there would have never been a Willie Horton ad.
And while I despise the Koch family, I can't blame them for the Willie Horton ad, or the slimy pragmatism of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.