This label-clarifying is apt and quickly explains where we are, in terms of strong undercurrents that are not always readily visible. Unfortunately, the distinction between "conservative" and "right-liberal" is not going to be appreciated and adopted very far beyond these virtual pages. So: The Burke>Buckley>Reagan tradition is not "cons…
This label-clarifying is apt and quickly explains where we are, in terms of strong undercurrents that are not always readily visible. Unfortunately, the distinction between "conservative" and "right-liberal" is not going to be appreciated and adopted very far beyond these virtual pages.
So: The Burke>Buckley>Reagan tradition is not "conservative", but rather "right-liberal" in nature. Until Trump and with the exception of the brief George Wallace campaign, neither party was "conservative", yet there existed a substantial part of the population that was. The "right-liberals" courted the "conservatives" as a means of achieving power. But the "conservatives" were more numerous, and engaged. Eventually, some pied pipers appeared, in Gingrich, Buchanan, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Trump, and now Carlson, to steer the believers in patriarchy toward seizing influence from the "right-liberals". The latter now hang out at the Bulwark, the Dispatch, and so forth; the former fly their Trump flags high and contemplate the virtues of political terrorism.
In my view, the modern Republican Party has become a partnership for raw power, not an entity based on agreed policy objectives. It is funded at the national and state levels by the oligarch wannabes, aided and abetted at the local level by small-business owners, and reliant upon the everyday fans of patriarchy and rigid social structure (especially in the lower tier) to win elections. Their mutual dependencies provide powerful incentives to stick together.
This is *exactly* my point of view on what has happened. (Though I would make the addendum that the Slaver-society of the Old South was Conservative to the core.) Thanks for unpacking it further...!
This label-clarifying is apt and quickly explains where we are, in terms of strong undercurrents that are not always readily visible. Unfortunately, the distinction between "conservative" and "right-liberal" is not going to be appreciated and adopted very far beyond these virtual pages.
So: The Burke>Buckley>Reagan tradition is not "conservative", but rather "right-liberal" in nature. Until Trump and with the exception of the brief George Wallace campaign, neither party was "conservative", yet there existed a substantial part of the population that was. The "right-liberals" courted the "conservatives" as a means of achieving power. But the "conservatives" were more numerous, and engaged. Eventually, some pied pipers appeared, in Gingrich, Buchanan, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Trump, and now Carlson, to steer the believers in patriarchy toward seizing influence from the "right-liberals". The latter now hang out at the Bulwark, the Dispatch, and so forth; the former fly their Trump flags high and contemplate the virtues of political terrorism.
In my view, the modern Republican Party has become a partnership for raw power, not an entity based on agreed policy objectives. It is funded at the national and state levels by the oligarch wannabes, aided and abetted at the local level by small-business owners, and reliant upon the everyday fans of patriarchy and rigid social structure (especially in the lower tier) to win elections. Their mutual dependencies provide powerful incentives to stick together.
Good analysis! They also have a propaganda machine, which my be their strongest play. They have a Pravda. They have their Pyongyang Times.
This is *exactly* my point of view on what has happened. (Though I would make the addendum that the Slaver-society of the Old South was Conservative to the core.) Thanks for unpacking it further...!