The story of how the GOP fringes took over

[calamity]

As most of us fled the Party of Lincoln, some people stayed on board. Who? And why?

Under Ronald Reagan, libertarian economics and conservative moralism entered the pamphlets and speeches of Republicans. Soon libertarians, antigovernment campaigners, and moralizers became the party’s mainstream, pushing moderate Republicans to its fringe or out of the party altogether. . .

Politically speaking, in the 1950s Democrats and Republicans converged at the liberal center. The liberal historian Hartz and the liberal student of politics Lipset were not alone in treating the United States as if it in fact was as John Rawls thought it ought to be: a country of manageable disagreements framed by overarching liberal concord. . .

After Reagan, the Republican Party fell into the hands of the religious right and antigovernment fundamentalists. A once liberal party shrank into something at or beyond the edges of liberalism. In the decades after 1980, the share of American voters calling themselves Republican halved.

How Republicans became the “stupid” party: Turning right, refusing to recognize facts and change - Salon.com

 

[CalGun]

Its funny how the DNC calls the the conservative values of the majority of our nation "fringes." Its almost like they can rewrite history, make things up and tell what ever they want - even if its not true. I especially condemn the calling opinions "facts" as is done in the headline. That is how left wing fascist roll on - their opinion is "fact" and any who disagree are "ignorant." Sorry but your opinions on the radical left are just that opinions and they show more danger then facts.

As most of us fled the Party of Lincoln, some people stayed on board. Who? And why?

 

[rocket88]

Its funny how the DNC calls the the conservative values of the majority of our nation "fringes." Its almost like they can rewrite history, make things up and tell what ever they want - even if its not true. I especially condemn the calling opinions "facts" as is done in the headline. That is how left wing fascist roll on - their opinion is "fact" and any who disagree are "ignorant." Sorry but your opinions on the radical left are just that opinions and they show more danger then facts.

There is opinion on the extreme left. However I think this touches on something. It's not a "Party of Lincoln" thing as much as the anti-intellectualism, faux-populism that's crept into, and in some ways taken over the Republican Party.

Though I wonder sometimes why saying tne N-word seems to be acceptable on the right. Just say it and they flock in droves to defend you.

 

[calamity]

Its funny how the DNC calls the the conservative values of the majority of our nation "fringes." Its almost like they can rewrite history, make things up and tell what ever they want - even if its not true. I especially condemn the calling opinions "facts" as is done in the headline. That is how left wing fascist roll on - their opinion is "fact" and any who disagree are "ignorant." Sorry but your opinions on the radical left are just that opinions and they show more danger then facts.

Seriously? The nation is and always was a Center-Right country. Liberal democracy meant what it said, not what the "fringe" now calls socialism. THe Far Right has made the GOP bonkers. This is why so many people have left the party.

 

[votemout]

As most of us fled the Party of Lincoln, some people stayed on board. Who? And why?

The smart ones fled to the party of Tea its the ones that remain in the one party system of the repukelicrates, we all have to worry about.

They flea from one party to the other and nothing EVER changes. Instead they point to the "other" party (that you just left) as the reason nothing gets changed.

It is a pretty nice scam and it has been working for years so why change it! If people would look the Big banks are almost always the biggest donors TO BOTH parties.

But then I noticed it is a Salon article you linked LMAO. I checked my privilege at the door and did not click to that total racist of a "News" Source.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Its funny how the DNC calls the the conservative values of the majority of our nation "fringes." Its almost like they can rewrite history, make things up and tell what ever they want - even if its not true. I especially condemn the calling opinions "facts" as is done in the headline. That is how left wing fascist roll on - their opinion is "fact" and any who disagree are "ignorant." Sorry but your opinions on the radical left are just that opinions and they show more danger then facts.

Really? Have you ever been a Democrat and a liberal, that you were able to see things from the other side? The author of the OP seems to have been a Republican at one time, and I know I certainly was - I was Republican and strongly conservative, voted for Reagan and Bush 41, and have stated on this forum many times how I admire Bush 41 to this day.

So unless you've been a liberal, that means you have not walked a mile in our political moccasins, whereas we certainly have walked a mile in your own. At one time both parties had liberals and conservatives - in fact, the Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without Republican liberals. But the racists in what had largely been what was called the Democratic "Solid South" blamed the Democratic party as a whole for the CRA and desegregation - even though most of their politicians were at the time strongly conservative Democrats...and were probably the most racist in the nation. The Republican party saw this as an opportunity to take the Democrats' "Solid South" - see Nixon's senior campaign advisor's Southern Strategy:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

And he was right. They followed that Southern Strategy, and the South not-so-slowly became the strong heart of the Republican base. Problem is, when the South became the Republican base, this also included all those racists, those "negrophobes" mentioned above. The GOP of the early 1970's didn't realize how the attitude of those racists - while it did not turn most Republicans racist - would in the decades to come make it okay to tolerate racist words by other conservatives...and the proof of this lay in the poll I started in this forum about whether people thought freedom to discriminate was more important than freedom from discrimination. All those who defended the "freedom to discriminate" were from the Right. Every. single. one.

But wait - that's not all! The South is called the "Bible Belt" for a reason - it's by far the most religious part of the nation. And if the heart of the base of the Republican party is strongly religious, then this will be reflected in its candidates. This is why it is still a very difficult matter to say that evolution is right and creationism is wrong and somehow expect to get nominated by the GOP.

All the above isn't opinion - it's simple historical fact, and I know it because I lived it as a strongly conservative Republican who grew up in the deepest part of the Deep South. You can disagree all you want - but I lived it. You haven't.

Oh, and one more thing - "fascist left" is an oxymoron, because "fascist" is a far-right governmental model, just as "communism" is a far-left governmental model.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The smart ones fled to the party of Tea its the ones that remain in the one party system of the repukelicrates, we all have to worry about.

They flea from one party to the other and nothing EVER changes. Instead they point to the "other" party (that you just left) as the reason nothing gets changed.

It is a pretty nice scam and it has been working for years so why change it! If people would look the Big banks are almost always the biggest donors TO BOTH parties.

But then I noticed it is a Salon article you linked LMAO. I checked my privilege at the door and did not click to that total racist of a "News" Source.

Ah. If somebody you don't like says something, then anything that person says must therefore be false? Do you see the problem there?

This is why, even if somebody posts links to Breitbart or redstate.com or even infowars - far-right looney-tunes sites all - I do not immediately ignore the site. I'll check it out and see if what is said is true.

You see, FACT is determined NOT by who says a thing, but by WHAT thing is said. Otherwise, you will never, ever learn to look at both sides of a story before you make up your mind - you'll only have the side of the story you wanted to hear, and you'll be completely ignorant of the other side of the story.

 

[votemout]

Ah. If somebody you don't like says something, then anything that person says must therefore be false? Do you see the problem there?

This is why, even if somebody posts links to Breitbart or redstate.com or even infowars - far-right looney-tunes sites all - I do not immediately ignore the site. I'll check it out and see if what is said is true.

You see, FACT is determined NOT by who says a thing, but by WHAT thing is said. Otherwise, you will never, ever learn to look at both sides of a story before you make up your mind - you'll only have the side of the story you wanted to hear, and you'll be completely ignorant of the other side of the story.

Well I read left sites as well but Salon is nothing more then a race baiting rag tag website. You know Checking my Privilege, to not read the Bogus propaganda they spin.


But i noted you completely ignored my take on the whole about the conversation at hand.

 

[AJiveMan]

They flea from one party to the other and nothing EVER changes. Instead they point to the "other" party (that you just left) as the reason nothing gets changed.

But then I noticed it is a Salon article you linked LMAO.

Like fleas on a dog? :lamo

Everytime I see a con reference Faux Noise, I :lamo too.

 

[calamity]

The smart ones fled to the party of Tea its the ones that remain in the one party system of the repukelicrates, we all have to worry about.

They flea from one party to the other and nothing EVER changes. Instead they point to the "other" party (that you just left) as the reason nothing gets changed.

It is a pretty nice scam and it has been working for years so why change it! If people would look the Big banks are almost always the biggest donors TO BOTH parties.

But then I noticed it is a Salon article you linked LMAO. I checked my privilege at the door and did not click to that total racist of a "News" Source.

Considering the Koch Bros funded the Tea Party, I'm not about to call that movement something i want to get behind. Sorry, you're no better than what you argue against..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0

 

[clownboy]

I notice you spend quite a bit of your time talking smack about the republicans calamity. The democrats and libertarians, not so much. By any standard the dems have been just as involved in the wars and the other events you piss and moan over here. Were you raised by mean ole republicans who wouldn't let you have a pony or something?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well I read left sites as well but Salon is nothing more then a race baiting rag tag website. You know Checking my Privilege, to not read the Bogus propaganda they spin.


But i noted you completely ignored my take on the whole about the conversation at hand.

I wasn't replying to your take - I was replying to your remark that "I checked my privilege at the door and did not click to that total racist of a "News" Source." You not only immediately judged it as 'racist', questioned its newsworthiness...but most importantly, decided to not check out what it actually said, apparently because you decided that the site was racist and not newsworthy. Because of your assumptions about that site, you assumed that if that site said something, it must not be true enough for you to pay attention to it.

My whole point is, you really should learn to not assume. Bad things happen when people 'assume'.

 

[jaeger19]

The reality is that our party after Reagan began to change because republican's realized that they needed more votes to win. Some of that was urbanization which tended to go more democratic, some of that was due to civil rights. Reagan and the party began wooing Southern democrats who were disgruntled with their party, and they began wooing northern voters, that though they had supported civil rights, now the bloom was off the rose. Many whites found that they supported civil rights and desegregation on a philosophical level, but it was a little different when they had to have their white children bused to a school to even out a predominately black school, or suddenly found that they were competing with black people in the work place and in some cases the black folks had an advantage by law. So we began wooing these folks with "welfare queens" and with talks about "states rights" etc. In addition, we found another potential voting block in the evangelicals.

The real question though is why did these groups then manage to get a stranglehold on the party? I mean, they are NOT the majority.. no way no how... but our republican leaders seem to kow tow to these folks like never before.

and why? Its not just votes.. heck, who else are they going to vote for? Democrats?

I think the reason that they hold so much sway is MONEY. Money has always been important in politics (its no coincidence that our founding fathers by and large were rich), however the AMOUNT of money that's needed for a successful campaign has grown exponentially. Now I think that votes have become secondary in a way to the money. Money first.. and then get the votes.

And what do you need to get people to not just vote for you.. but to part with their hard earned cash? Anger, hate, and fear, are awfully good motivators. I think these groups are more likely to be stirred up and by doing so. more likely to throw money to the party.

 

[rocket88]

I notice you spend quite a bit of your time talking smack about the republicans calamity. The democrats and libertarians, not so much. By any standard the dems have been just as involved in the wars and the other events you piss and moan over here. Were you raised by mean ole republicans who wouldn't let you have a pony or something?

I feel like asking the same sort of question of other posters who always talk about "the big scary Left."

 

[rocket88]

republican's realized that they needed more votes to win.

OK, Captain Obvious.

Next you're going to tell us that at some point Bill Belichick realized that scoring more points than the other team was a good thing in football.

 

[calamity]

The reality is that our party after Reagan began to change because republican's realized that they needed more votes to win. Some of that was urbanization which tended to go more democratic, some of that was due to civil rights. Reagan and the party began wooing Southern democrats who were disgruntled with their party, and they began wooing northern voters, that though they had supported civil rights, now the bloom was off the rose. Many whites found that they supported civil rights and desegregation on a philosophical level, but it was a little different when they had to have their white children bused to a school to even out a predominately black school, or suddenly found that they were competing with black people in the work place and in some cases the black folks had an advantage by law. So we began wooing these folks with "welfare queens" and with talks about "states rights" etc. In addition, we found another potential voting block in the evangelicals.

The real question though is why did these groups then manage to get a stranglehold on the party? I mean, they are NOT the majority.. no way no how... but our republican leaders seem to kow tow to these folks like never before.

I think it's because they are easy to woo. All it takes is a few cheap to produce ads containing a couple simplistic soundbites and these idiots turn out to vote in droves. Eventually, guys who majored in soundbites, like Rush Limbaugh, became the defacto leaders of the party---dumbing it down as a result.

and why? Its not just votes.. heck, who else are they going to vote for? Democrats?

I think the reason that they hold so much sway is MONEY. Money has always been important in politics (its no coincidence that our founding fathers by and large were rich), however the AMOUNT of money that's needed for a successful campaign has grown exponentially. Now I think that votes have become secondary in a way to the money. Money first.. and then get the votes.

And what do you need to get people to not just vote for you.. but to part with their hard earned cash? Anger, hate, and fear, are awfully good motivators. I think these groups are more likely to be stirred up and by doing so. more likely to throw money to the party.

Yep. Hate sells.

 

[Fearandloathing]

As most of us fled the Party of Lincoln, some people stayed on board. Who? And why?

What it is saying is that the center has vanished and I agree.

While this is aimed at Republicans for Republicans it only mentions

once liberal party shrank into something at or beyond the edges of liberalism

And there is where the problem lies.


Politics is not a vacuum. Where there are two parties, there are at least two influences and maybe more attitudes, which are always changing. The center left has moved left either because it has been led there, or in response to stimuli.

The right of center have move right, either having been led [doubtful with Bush and Bush] or in response, likely Bush and Bush. The certainly is the idea that the party has to move significantly to the right to win...which is asinine as no party has ever won by going extreme; Reagan's first victory was not ideological and was in fact, what stands today as "Liberal" policies in Canada....

I do not believe there is a "liberal" anything in America...there may be nuanced variations on a theme, but since Carter I have not seen a government that saw liberalism as "less government and more individualism" but rather, big government involved in the lives of individuals, right down to what children must eat in school as dictated by the White House and the whim of a non-elected, non-official "celebrity"

 

[calamity]

I notice you spend quite a bit of your time talking smack about the republicans calamity. The democrats and libertarians, not so much. By any standard the dems have been just as involved in the wars and the other events you piss and moan over here. Were you raised by mean ole republicans who wouldn't let you have a pony or something?

When Dems do stupid things, I rail against them. Trust me, if they nominate the Hildabeast, I'll be pretty much anti-R&D.

 

[votemout]

I wasn't replying to your take - I was replying to your remark that "I checked my privilege at the door and did not click to that total racist of a "News" Source." You not only immediately judged it as 'racist', questioned its newsworthiness...but most importantly, decided to not check out what it actually said, apparently because you decided that the site was racist and not newsworthy. Because of your assumptions about that site, you assumed that if that site said something, it must not be true enough for you to pay attention to it.

My whole point is, you really should learn to not assume. Bad things happen when people 'assume'.

I know enough about Salon to know what they are about.

 

[votemout]

When Dems do stupid things, I rail against them. Trust me, if they nominate the Hildabeast, I'll be pretty much anti-R&D.

See how they are pushing clinton and Bush again? that one party system of repukelicrates. has done enough damage to this country.

 

[calamity]

What it is saying is that the center has vanished and I agree.

While this is aimed at Republicans for Republicans it only mentions

And there is where the problem lies.


Politics is not a vacuum. Where there are two parties, there are at least two influences and maybe more attitudes, which are always changing. The center left has moved left either because it has been led there, or in response to stimuli.

The right of center have move right, either having been led [doubtful with Bush and Bush] or in response, likely Bush and Bush. The certainly is the idea that the party has to move significantly to the right to win...which is asinine as no party has ever won by going extreme; Reagan's first victory was not ideological and was in fact, what stands today as "Liberal" policies in Canada....

I do not believe there is a "liberal" anything in America...there may be nuanced variations on a theme, but since Carter I have not seen a government that saw liberalism as "less government and more individualism" but rather, big government involved in the lives of individuals, right down to what children must eat in school as dictated by the White House and the whim of a non-elected, non-official "celebrity"

Good assessment.

Primaries pander to the party base, Left or Right. Then, in the General, the candidates scurry to the center, which is where most Americans live. As a result, we hear some rather extreme crap from each party for several years as they both pander to their base--After all, those are the people who pay the most attention to the crap being said, and those most likely to scratch the party a check--then, like clockwork, when the pivot to the Center goes into full swing, we all start saying "the candidates are all the same." THey are not, but they try to sell us on that...hoping we ignore all that we heard during the primary season, which these days is nearly 3 years long.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I know enough about Salon to know what they are about.

Riiiiiiight. Whatever. And you're proving my point - you're less concerned about what is said than about who said it.

 

[mtm1963]

liberals/progressives some 35 years later are still talking about Reagan. that shows the influence Reagan had/has on this country.

in 1980 republicans had a majority in the senate after nearly 25 straight years of democratic control.

in 1994 republicans had a majority in the house after 50 years of democratic control.

to Edmund Fawcett, this is an evolution in the politics of the country. an evolution that you call fringe because your liberal views/ideas are not working the way used to work in this country.

the democrats are on the verge of losing their control of the senate to republicans. ask yourself why? look at the polling information, it will tell you why.

 

[jaeger19]

I think it's because they are easy to woo. All it takes is a few cheap to produce ads containing a couple simplistic soundbites and these idiots turn out to vote in droves. Eventually, guys who majored in soundbites, like Rush Limbaugh, became the defacto leaders of the party---dumbing it down as a result.


Yep. Hate sells.

Actually, they aren't easy to woo... that's why our party is in such disarray. At one time might be.. throw a little anti welfare here, a sound bite about states rights, a little homophobia, and they would vote republican.

NOW.. if you don't dance like a chicken to them, then they are coming after you in the primary.

As far as dumb.. neither party has a lock on that...

 

[Zyphlin]

So essentially....

"Wah, liberalism had the monopoly on both parties for a good part of the prior century, giving few Republican presidents and a congress historically bereft of Republican majority....then those crazy republicans actually made use of the other significant ideological segment of the country and actually begun winning in significant fashion."

What issue exactly are we supposed to be seeing here? That instead of one ideology reigning supreme there's actual, relative, choice between the ideologies viable on a federal level? That instead of one party having a near stranglehold on the legislative body for half a century we have both parties showing potential to actually gain control?

I know, how HORRIBLE for the Salon writer, to actually be faced with the chance to not have their ideology in some fashion represented by all major parties. That's CLEARLY worse than the other side of that coin, when an entire sizable portion of hte population didn't have their ideology represented by any of the major parties.