GOP like Gaul is divided into 3 parts

The Republicans used to say that their Party was like a three-legged stool: Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Foreign Policy Conservatives (Hawks).

As the Presidential Race began most thought the GOP was divided in half; one one side the Ron Paul-Rand Paul Libertarians and on the other side the "Establishment" , Romney, Bush, etc.

But what then to make of the Tea Party? Were the Paulite anti-government Libertarians or old fashioned Conservatives. And how could neo-isolationist Paul and hawkish Ted Cruz both be Tea Party favorites?

The article I have linked shows how the Trump campaign has revealed what the Tea Party actually is and to me has reminded me of what I always thought was the true three-way division or three legs of the GOP stool.

1.Establishment - Pro- Big Business

2. Libertarian - Anti-Government

3. Populist - Tea Party.

The Republican Party was created in the 1850s by combining what were essentially the same three elements as above.

The "Establishment" pro business Whigs, the Anti-Slavery Free Soil Party (essentially "pro-freedom" like libertarians) and the Anti-Immigrant Know Nothing Party. (Right-Wing Populism).

Anyway that's my unprofessional, amateur political-historical analysis.

LOST

Sep 4, 2015 at 5:36am

Maybe no one wanted to talk about this. Is the thread title too esoteric?

PVW

Sep 4, 2015 at 6:13am

My amateur analysis -

Politics only makes sense if you see it as organizing people, not as being about competing ideas. The Republican party is for people who strongly identify as white. The Democratic party is for everyone else. That's why Donald Trump is doing just fine despite apparently being out of sync on conservative ideas. He fits in perfectly with people who are threatened by renaming a mountain from a dead white president to its original native name. He speaks for those who are made uneasy by people from different countries, or who don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the police.

That leads to some friction within the party. If you're a wealthy white businessman, your economic interests are threatened by xenophobia and nativism -- whether your identify more strongly by your ethnic heritage, or by your economic interests, determines if you feel more comfortable in the Republican or the Democratic party, for instance.

On the other side, since the Democrats are "everyone else" that makes them both more diverse but also more fractious. It's why you often see every single Republican + a handful of Democrats vote for something, but almost never see every single Democrat joined by any Republicans. Republicans are a more unified and coherent group.

It's also why Democrats are "liberals." Liberalism is much more fitted to governing a diverse coalition than conservatism is. Individually, many people who vote Democrat can be quite conservative on a number of issue. Acting collectively means having to accommodate all the various differences, which is liberal.

I don't know how this traces back through the history of the parties exactly, but this idea of racial identity is definitely a constant. It's not an accident that Republicans have become increasingly extreme following the Civil Rights acts and the exodus of white conservatives from the democratic party. In many way, "conservative" in America has less to do with ideas and more to do with your feelings toward African Americans.