3 ms·

> Makes me look back at the last 20-30 years of discourse in the United States and let out a deep sigh. George H.W. Bush ("Bush 41") actually had a decent trac

> Makes me look back at the last 20-30 years of discourse in the United States and let out a deep sigh. George H.W. Bush ("Bush 41") actually had a decent track record on the environment and climate change: * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/george-h-w-bush-understood-that-markets-and-the-environment-werent-enemies https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/george-h-w-bush-underst... The craziness with the GOP started more recently (post-1990s).

matttproud 5y ago
1992, Bush utters “Ozone Man” into the lexicon as a pejorative against Al Gore. There is a difference between campaign rhetoric and policy, to be sure, but the country lost clarity of focus rapidly as a nation after the Gulf War and began to let trivial things divide it. (I remember the 1990s culture wars, and I’d like to forget.) Bush senior may have been one of the last decent human Republicans outside of his periodic populist gestures. I’d say Nixon (modulo corruption) or Ford (ineptitude) or Eisenhower was probably the last. I’ll never forgive the Bush son for pissing away my generations’ future and Rove’s mobilization of the demos into this gerrymandered hellscape.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  And yet Reagan (with Bush as VP) signed the Montreal Protocol. And Bush 41 created the acid rain pact with Canada (PM Mulroney). A lot of blame goes to Bush 43 ("Dubya") for a lot of things, but I generally view him as a patsy for those around him that actually made the decisions and pushed them through.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    When in doubt, always blame Congress and not the president. Newt Gingrich is a bigger player here than either Bush.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
tablespoon 5y ago
> The craziness with the GOP started more recently (post-1990s). IIRC, you can date that phase to 1994 and Newt Gingrich. Though that was maybe more like phase II, with phase I starting in ~1980 with Reagan.
- handrous 5y ago
  Yep. The late 70s and early 80s mark the beginning of several strategies, policies, and chess moves that paid off big time in the 90s. The neoliberal movement gained a major presence in the Republican Party at the beginning of that span, and by the early 90s it had also captured the Democrats. The Fairness Doctrine fell, and its absence was quickly exploited. The ball took a while to get rolling, but was moving fast by the early 90s. Economic libertarianism saw some important activity near the beginning of that span, and its very confident anti-government and laissez-faire positions and language became very influential through the 90s, and it continues to grow. The fusion of the GOP and evangelical Christianity became (very deliberately) much more solid in the late 70s and the 80s. Basically the Republicans began in a bunch of ways to shift toward their 2rd major re-organization and re-orientation since WWII in a short span of years around 1980, with the 90s being when they'd pretty much finished that shift. They may be working on a 3rd one now, which we may end up backdating to the Tea Party movement (that time being this incarnation's "~1980" turning point). We'll see, depends how the next 5-10 years goes, may amount to nothing. As a side-effect (or bonus, to those behind it) the Democrats ended up having their 2nd major change in the same period, too (to solidly pro-neoliberal). AFAI can tell they're not starting their next serious shift, yet.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Economic libertarianism saw some important activity near the beginning of that span, and its very confident anti-government and laissez-faire positions and language became very influential through the 90s, and it continues to grow. That's true, but I'd quibble with the "it continues to grow" part. IMHO, it's peaked. It's still strong, but Trump and other populists dealt it a blow; and it's arguably now sclerotic "old thing" instead of the buzzy "new thing."
bediger4000 5y ago
Bush 41's immediate predecessor did not have a decent track record. The craziness started well before 1980. Bush 41 was an aberration.
- matttproud 5y ago
  Two book recommendations for their retrospective analyses over the last 37 years: Nick Bryant’s When America Stopped Being Great (BBC reporter who spent formative years in USA, beyond being on assignment there). George Packer’s Last Best Hope (Packer has a bunch of other fantastic material)

matttproud 5y ago

1992, Bush utters “Ozone Man” into the lexicon as a pejorative against Al Gore. There is a difference between campaign rhetoric and policy, to be sure, but the country lost clarity of focus rapidly as a nation after the Gulf War and began to let trivial things divide it. (I remember the 1990s culture wars, and I’d like to forget.) Bush senior may have been one of the last decent human Republicans outside of his periodic populist gestures. I’d say Nixon (modulo corruption) or Ford (ineptitude) or Eisenhower was probably the last. I’ll never forgive the Bush son for pissing away my generations’ future and Rove’s mobilization of the demos into this gerrymandered hellscape.

throw0101a 5y ago
And yet Reagan (with Bush as VP) signed the Montreal Protocol. And Bush 41 created the acid rain pact with Canada (PM Mulroney). A lot of blame goes to Bush 43 ("Dubya") for a lot of things, but I generally view him as a patsy for those around him that actually made the decisions and pushed them through.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  When in doubt, always blame Congress and not the president. Newt Gingrich is a bigger player here than either Bush.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

tablespoon 5y ago

> The craziness with the GOP started more recently (post-1990s). IIRC, you can date that phase to 1994 and Newt Gingrich. Though that was maybe more like phase II, with phase I starting in ~1980 with Reagan.

handrous 5y ago
Yep. The late 70s and early 80s mark the beginning of several strategies, policies, and chess moves that paid off big time in the 90s. The neoliberal movement gained a major presence in the Republican Party at the beginning of that span, and by the early 90s it had also captured the Democrats. The Fairness Doctrine fell, and its absence was quickly exploited. The ball took a while to get rolling, but was moving fast by the early 90s. Economic libertarianism saw some important activity near the beginning of that span, and its very confident anti-government and laissez-faire positions and language became very influential through the 90s, and it continues to grow. The fusion of the GOP and evangelical Christianity became (very deliberately) much more solid in the late 70s and the 80s. Basically the Republicans began in a bunch of ways to shift toward their 2rd major re-organization and re-orientation since WWII in a short span of years around 1980, with the 90s being when they'd pretty much finished that shift. They may be working on a 3rd one now, which we may end up backdating to the Tea Party movement (that time being this incarnation's "~1980" turning point). We'll see, depends how the next 5-10 years goes, may amount to nothing. As a side-effect (or bonus, to those behind it) the Democrats ended up having their 2nd major change in the same period, too (to solidly pro-neoliberal). AFAI can tell they're not starting their next serious shift, yet.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Economic libertarianism saw some important activity near the beginning of that span, and its very confident anti-government and laissez-faire positions and language became very influential through the 90s, and it continues to grow. That's true, but I'd quibble with the "it continues to grow" part. IMHO, it's peaked. It's still strong, but Trump and other populists dealt it a blow; and it's arguably now sclerotic "old thing" instead of the buzzy "new thing."

bediger4000 5y ago

Bush 41's immediate predecessor did not have a decent track record. The craziness started well before 1980. Bush 41 was an aberration.

matttproud 5y ago
Two book recommendations for their retrospective analyses over the last 37 years: Nick Bryant’s When America Stopped Being Great (BBC reporter who spent formative years in USA, beyond being on assignment there). George Packer’s Last Best Hope (Packer has a bunch of other fantastic material)