This is right up my political alley, though I stopped voting Republican years before these guys did.
I did especially like this angle from Brooks, which I hadn't really thought of but is spot-on:
"I’m slightly bearish about DeSantis. He does a good job of being Trumpy without Trump, but I wonder if a man who apparently has net negative social skills and empathy can really thrive during an intimately covered national campaign that will last two years. Trump was at least funny, and to his voters, charismatic."
jimmurphy said:
I know that the knee-jerk reaction to Stephens and Brooks here is that they are idiots, but I thought this was a rational discussion, worthy of ours.
it's a rational discussion. But they don't really own up to the parts they played in the history of the GOP. And they don't seem to want to go near any discussion of white grievance and the part it played in the Tea Party and everything that's gone on since. So it's rational, and there's not really anything to disagree with. But it struck me as kind of disingenuous, which is par for Brooks's course, and not out of character for Stephens either.
This discussion can’t really get going without some of the more liberal Democrats jumping in (while also welcoming mtierney in with open arms), but I thought it was a thoughtful discussion of where the R party has lost its way, and there was agreement with many of the causes we’ve discussed here.
Gingrich and Fox chief among them.
I thought the acknowledgement of past, saner positions on immigration was interesting. Reagan championed immigration and amnesty was granted. I’ve heard one of Reagan’s speeches on immigration, but did not recall the amnesty.
ml1 said:
it's a rational discussion. But they don't really own up to the parts they played in the history of the GOP. And they don't seem to want to go near any discussion of white grievance and the part it played in the Tea Party and everything that's gone on since. So it's rational, and there's not really anything to disagree with. But it struck me as kind of disingenuous, which is par for Brooks's course, and not out of character for Stephens either.
I dunno, I think they acknowledge grievance as the motivator, but clearly don’t label it racism, which is of course the crux of it.
They're themselves.
With David Brooks, his analysis seems to be more about him and his issues.
With Bret Stephens, he ignores the reality of the conservatives' goals, and definitely pretends not to see the racism.
You can't talk about the rise of Ronald Reagan and ignore the racism that he exploited, for example, if you're "diagnosing" the GOP.
It's overly simplistic to say it is all about racism. There are large swathes of rural or semi-rural America where people work hard yet see a declining standard of living who feel totally ignored by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is painted by the GOP as being all about BLM and LGTBQ rights and nothing else. If you are struggling to get by, my guess is that you want to hear about bread and butter issues. And here, while the Democrats have certainly done more that the GOP, the message is either not communicated or is just drowned out.
tjohn said:
It's overly simplistic to say it is all about racism. There are large swathes of rural or semi-rural America where people work hard yet see a declining standard of living who feel totally ignored by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is painted by the GOP as being all about BLM and LGTBQ rights and nothing else. If you are struggling to get by, my guess is that you want to hear about bread and butter issues. And here, while the Democrats have certainly done more that the GOP, the message is either not communicated or is just drowned out.
It's not "all about racism", but racism has been a significant pillar that the GOP relied on.
There's also the "genteel" racism, such as Bret Stephens' comment after Brooks said he couldn't vote for McCain with Sarah Palin on the ticket: " I voted for McCain. If I were basing my presidential votes on the vice-presidential candidate, I’d have thought twice about voting for Biden." In what world is Kamala Harris that inferior to Mike Pence? I'll concede that Stephens may think of her as "scarier".
nohero said:
They're themselves.
With David Brooks, his analysis seems to be more about him and his issues.
With Bret Stephens, he ignores the reality of the conservatives' goals, and definitely pretends not to see the racism.
You can't talk about the rise of Ronald Reagan and ignore the racism that he exploited, for example, if you're "diagnosing" the GOP.
I wish the focus would not be on Stephens and Brooks, but rather policy and where whatever reasonable policies the Rs have abandoned.
For example, immigration. Absent the demonization, I would like to see more control of the border and of course more legal immigration. I think the old Republicans would have and did support that too.
Is there a reasonable way to craft a Democratic message that points out that abandonment, or has the ship just completely sailed?
And if it has sailed, what hope is there really?
jimmurphy said:
I wish the focus would not be on Stephens and Brooks, but rather policy and where whatever reasonable policies the Rs have abandoned.
For example, immigration. Absent the demonization, I would like to see more control of the border and of course more legal immigration. I think the old Republicans would have and did support that too.
Is there a reasonable way to craft a Democratic message that points out that abandonment, or has the ship just completely sailed?
And if it has sailed, what hope is there really?
One problem is that the GOP shoots down Democratic proposals to reform immigration laws. The GOP extremists pull the party away from any compromise. Example: "A new immigration reform proposal by first-term Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) is further exposing a split within the GOP between those who want the party to lead on immigration reform and hard-liners increasingly vocal against immigration as a whole." GOP bill highlights Republican rift on immigration | The Hill
A lot of Republicans were much rather rant about how Democrats favor unrestricted immigration than actually develop a rational immigration policy. A rational immigration policy, of course, will make nobody happy.
tjohn said:
A lot of Republicans were much rather rant about how Democrats favor unrestricted immigration than actually develop a rational immigration policy. A rational immigration policy, of course, will make nobody happy.
I think it would make many small business owners happy, appealing to the Republicans, and if it dealt with the dreamers and had an amnesty element, it could appeal enough to Democrats.
nohero said:
One problem is that the GOP shoots down Democratic proposals to reform immigration laws. The GOP extremists pull the party away from any compromise. Example: "A new immigration reform proposal by first-term Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) is further exposing a split within the GOP between those who want the party to lead on immigration reform and hard-liners increasingly vocal against immigration as a whole." GOP bill highlights Republican rift on immigration | The Hill
You’re right, of course.
Appealing to Republicans has to revolve around what’s in it for them. What’s “in it” is that young immigrant taxpayers fill jobs that nobody else wants, at relatively low wages, and support aging white people on Social Security. That can’t be messaged by some Democrat in a way that it can be heard?
Tangentially, given that Social Security is supposedly the “third rail” of politics, it amazes me that the Rs keep brining up cuts to Social Security and don’t seem to pay a political price for it.
From “Saint” Reagan:
President Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986:
“This bill, The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that I’ll sign in a few minutes, is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. It’s the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings in the last three congresses. Further, it’s an excellent example of a truly successful bipartisan effort. The administration and the allies of immigration reform on both sides of the capital and both sides of the aisle, worked together to accomplish these critically important reforms to control illegal immigration.
In 1981, this administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws and legalization. The Act provides these three essential components. Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not therefore be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors.
Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country, and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. I would like to recognize a few of the public servants whose unflagging efforts have made this legislation a reality. Senator Alan Simpson, Congressman Dan Lungren, chairman Peter Rodino, Congressman Ron Mazzoli, have long pursued and now have attained this landmark legislation.
Important roles were played by Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Paul Simon, Congressman Ham Fish, Bill McCollum, Chuck Schumer and many others in both houses of the Congress and in both parties. Additionally, I would like to note the excellent efforts of members of my administration, who have worked so hard over the last six years to make this bill signing possible today. The long, long list of those in the executive branches, edit by attorneys general, Edward Meese and William Prince Smith, who with immigration commissioner, Alan C. Nelson have contributed greatly to our efforts to pass meaningful immigration reform.
Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people, American citizenship.”
^^Posted that as an example of where they used to be.
Of course the enforcement mechanism was diluted because they say one thing and do another.
jimmurphy said:
ml1 said:
it's a rational discussion. But they don't really own up to the parts they played in the history of the GOP. And they don't seem to want to go near any discussion of white grievance and the part it played in the Tea Party and everything that's gone on since. So it's rational, and there's not really anything to disagree with. But it struck me as kind of disingenuous, which is par for Brooks's course, and not out of character for Stephens either.
I dunno, I think they acknowledge grievance as the motivator, but clearly don’t label it racism, which is of course the crux of it.
exactly.
They are certainly trying their best to be rational and have a discussion about where the GOP lost its way. But if there was cell service to hell, Lee Atwater could educate them a bit on how racism was leveraged to Republican advantage.
And again, they don't apparently want to acknowledge their part in all this. I get why they wouldn't want to stare into that abyss, but if they don't, I'm going to be distracted by that unacknowledged elephant in the room.
I kind of see this on two levels. If we're talking about the earlier, "normal" Republican party, a challenge there is that its worldview was premised on an idea of America that privileged white people. That's an uncomfortable fact, but it's hard to objectively argue against it. Calling that "racism" is both true and a bit of a conversational dead-end, because when people here "racist" usually they're thinking of the KKK and explicit anti-black violence. It's a discussion we've had on other threads already a few times. Structural racism is a real thing, it's deeply embedded into this country, and a political tradition that refuses to acknowledge it and which actively reacts against any attempts to address, much less mitigate it, can be accurately, even if often unhelpfully, described as being "racist."
Still, there's a definite between that older version of conservatism and storming the Capitol, and I think asking how Republican party got there is a good question.
Maybe it's as straightforward as, everyone believes in democracy and the rule of law until they don't believe they can ever win that way again. That seems to hold up I think. Sure, people like Brooks and Stephens, as part of the party that was inherently allied with white supremacy, were part of the problem. But democracy and the rule of law kept on undermining those older structures, so that earlier "democracy or my understanding of America" wasn't a real choice, but now it is. And faced with that, some (too few) are choosing democracy, with varying degrees of self-awareness of exactly what it's a choice between. And many (too many) are choosing "my way of life" which, sure it's code, but I'd say most making that choice probably don't have the historical or self awareness to understand what it's code for. Most I think just understand that the country is changing in a direction at odds with their view of the world and, having to choose between their social and psychological comfort or democracy and the rule of law, choose the former.
I don't even think American conservatives are especially exceptional in this regard. Heck, i was just in California over the holidays, and people there have a strong cultural identity as political liberals, but you look at their long-standing refusal to actually build housing and infrastructure and they sure come across as conservative in some significant aspects. Most people are resistant to change, some strongly so.
One aspect of their conversation is that they seem to think the Republican Party was set on its current path only in the past 15 years or so. They tout the Bush family as part of the respectable GOP old guard. But let's not forget Sr. gave us Willie Horton. W gave us a Big Lie in order to go to war in Iraq. The only difference between Bush, Cheney and the rest's Big Lie and Trump's election Big Lie is that the Bush Admin felt an obligation to at least give their Big Lie the veneer of "evidence." How quaint those times seem now.
But again, I get why Brooks and Stephens want to pretend those were the days of a true conservative party, based on rationality. Because to confront the fact that the Republican Party has been on the path to its current destination for close to 50 years would be to face their own responsibility for what it has become. Ronald Reagan's coded racism wasn't as overt as Trump and the extremists in Congress. But it laid the groundwork for Trumpism. And Frank Luntz, Gingrich and the Bushes laid the foundation for twisting language and lying.
and btw, the most galling of all the Republicans trying to distance themselves from the current party is Luntz. He created Newt Gingrich's playbook for how to communicate, and how to demonize his opponents. And now he pretends to be above what the party has become. He was an instrumental figure in pushing the GOP toward hyperpartisanship and extremism.
I know that the knee-jerk reaction to Stephens and Brooks here is that they are idiots, but I thought this was a rational discussion, worthy of ours.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/opinion/republican-party-future.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfqIhkSVUaAibSRdkhrxqAwuLC2KE2gn71JS7QUT9Y0_VQDZWc5l3AI6p_Yt95lxKqeOh8Cp59Dvpj0r0YeEV3VwijppbDkctbfHo49Nn2VztvhNeQDe00tDawNDj8eLkimue0thzaamjgS7WfhSN6XHttqJNjcFis0HMalOySQqMuhI4Ijbp2DYt6RDwBeCCJo_Hrbh11M9yEZR3XgRIkD6AbAXqA2I7BtM9TNVlaGlnET3lg4G4j6986ONMfPa_3Kx5Ia9MZKiBuInyDDYsPXAHHd0Y2&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare