3 ms·

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

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."
- handrous 5y ago
  Yeah, of course the Trumpist/(maybe? I'm not 100% sure on connecting the two)Tea-party wing is the new wave I'm talking about that might represent another transformation of the party (we'll see, may just be a blip). You're right that there's probably less influence from the libertarian thought in that—there remains a rhetoric of "government is definitely bad always" but I'm not sure there's follow-through in actual policy, and it's (much) less free-trade friendly. Trump, personally, was also highly notable for talking a pretty big anti-neoliberal talk, which is unique among major-party candidates for President in the last, oh, 30-40ish years—to be clear, this is not to be read as an endorsement of him, just noting something remarkable about his candidacy & time in office. Incidentally, these shifts are at the level of party leadership and policy. Nearly every Republican I've actually known since at least the 90s has had positions that match Trump's more than they match the average R politician, even as the party itself ignored, downplayed, or gone directly against many of those positions—I think that's exactly why Trump took those positions and ignored the orthodox Republican platform where it didn't match, in fact, and at times you could even see him apparently workshopping positions live, it really was fascinating—so I'd say the Republican electorate has been Trumpist for quite a while. Actually, some Trumpist positions, including anti-neoliberalism, anti-interventionism, and free trade skepticism, are very popular on the left too, but, as with pre-Trump Republicans, not well-represented among their politicians—I think there's an opportunity there, should someone find the right angle to attack it.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Nearly every Republican I've actually known since at least the 90s has had positions that match Trump's more than they match the average R politician, even as the party itself ignored, downplayed, or gone directly against many of those positions—I think that's exactly why Trump took those positions and ignored the orthodox Republican platform where it didn't match... Yeah, my understanding is that the Republican politicians basically governed for the capital class but used popular conservative social positions to keep enough support to make that work. > Actually, some Trumpist positions, including anti-neoliberalism, anti-interventionism, and free trade skepticism, are very popular on the left too, but, as with pre-Trump Republicans, not well-represented among their politicians—I think there's an opportunity there, should someone find the right angle to attack it. Yeah, I hope so. Trump is the kind of person the damages everything he touches. Usually that was bad, but in some significant areas the things he damaged really deserved that treatment (particularly the free trade dogma).
throw0101a 5y ago
> 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. Fairly well document in Kurt Anderson's recent book: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Geniuses:_The_Unmaking_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Geniuses:_The_Unmaking_of...

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."

handrous 5y ago
Yeah, of course the Trumpist/(maybe? I'm not 100% sure on connecting the two)Tea-party wing is the new wave I'm talking about that might represent another transformation of the party (we'll see, may just be a blip). You're right that there's probably less influence from the libertarian thought in that—there remains a rhetoric of "government is definitely bad always" but I'm not sure there's follow-through in actual policy, and it's (much) less free-trade friendly. Trump, personally, was also highly notable for talking a pretty big anti-neoliberal talk, which is unique among major-party candidates for President in the last, oh, 30-40ish years—to be clear, this is not to be read as an endorsement of him, just noting something remarkable about his candidacy & time in office. Incidentally, these shifts are at the level of party leadership and policy. Nearly every Republican I've actually known since at least the 90s has had positions that match Trump's more than they match the average R politician, even as the party itself ignored, downplayed, or gone directly against many of those positions—I think that's exactly why Trump took those positions and ignored the orthodox Republican platform where it didn't match, in fact, and at times you could even see him apparently workshopping positions live, it really was fascinating—so I'd say the Republican electorate has been Trumpist for quite a while. Actually, some Trumpist positions, including anti-neoliberalism, anti-interventionism, and free trade skepticism, are very popular on the left too, but, as with pre-Trump Republicans, not well-represented among their politicians—I think there's an opportunity there, should someone find the right angle to attack it.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Nearly every Republican I've actually known since at least the 90s has had positions that match Trump's more than they match the average R politician, even as the party itself ignored, downplayed, or gone directly against many of those positions—I think that's exactly why Trump took those positions and ignored the orthodox Republican platform where it didn't match... Yeah, my understanding is that the Republican politicians basically governed for the capital class but used popular conservative social positions to keep enough support to make that work. > Actually, some Trumpist positions, including anti-neoliberalism, anti-interventionism, and free trade skepticism, are very popular on the left too, but, as with pre-Trump Republicans, not well-represented among their politicians—I think there's an opportunity there, should someone find the right angle to attack it. Yeah, I hope so. Trump is the kind of person the damages everything he touches. Usually that was bad, but in some significant areas the things he damaged really deserved that treatment (particularly the free trade dogma).

throw0101a 5y ago

> 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. Fairly well document in Kurt Anderson's recent book: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Geniuses:_The_Unmaking_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Geniuses:_The_Unmaking_of...