3 ms·
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 trans
by 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).