3 ms·

I don't really know if it explains why America became "less liberal" in that period, but it is also the period when the Republican party took back control of Co

I don't really know if it explains why America became "less liberal" in that period, but it is also the period when the Republican party took back control of Congress in the 1994 election, which is known as the "Republican Revolution". It is also the period when Republicans controlled a majority of state legislatures and governorships. They did so by adopting a national strategy for the entire party, regardless of state, and this probably intensified some conservatism. When some state elections might have been localized, independents could choose either party depending on local context and issues. It used to be common to have a state with democratic senators and a republican governor, and vice versa. When the state elections are all "nationalized" as it were, you get intensification of political sides. In many respects, America is still in that situation. You are also seeing backlash to Bill Clinton and his attempts at healthcare reform (this would come again during Barak Obama's term and the rise of Tea-party style conservatism against health-care reform and the ensuing spiral into present day conservatism).

KerrAvon 5y ago
It’s important to remember that the pushback to the healthcare plans was astroturf — the Tea Party was announced by a mortgage broker on CNBC.
- wutangflanged 5y ago
  I don't understand how that's evidence of Astroturfing. Someone gave a name to a widely held sentiment (keep the government out of my life), someone formed or attempted to form a party around this?
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> You are also seeing backlash to Bill Clinton and his attempts at healthcare reform (this would come again during Barak Obama's term and the rise of Tea-party style conservatism against health-care reform and the ensuing spiral into present day conservatism). I do not see it as having to do with healthcare reform, but rather having to do with the wealth transfer necessary to facilitate the healthcare reform. For decades, the progress of certain socioeconomic classes had stalled, even by the 90s. Those classes could see those above them pulling away, but at least they had the comfort of knowing they were not at the bottom. However, the wealth redistribution required for healthcare reform would bring those below them up to their level, or at least remove the veneer of not being near the bottom and no longer being in the same world as those making gains, which is apparently not a preferable situation. In summary, I am pointing to the increasing wealth/income gap and relative movement of various socioeconomic tribes, perhaps inevitable due to technology and the consequences of its economies of scale. As long as the pie is getting bigger, and everyone is getting a bigger slice proportional to the size of their original slice, there is less strife (except at the bottom). Once the sizes of the slices start moving down relative to others’, there starts to be a retreat to tribal affiliations to fight against it.
dfxm12 5y ago
They did so by adopting a national strategy for the entire party, regardless of state, and this probably intensified some conservatism. And Rush Limbaugh's syndication on even FM stations plus the launch of Fox News in the mid 90s helped get that national message across.

KerrAvon 5y ago

It’s important to remember that the pushback to the healthcare plans was astroturf — the Tea Party was announced by a mortgage broker on CNBC.

wutangflanged 5y ago
I don't understand how that's evidence of Astroturfing. Someone gave a name to a widely held sentiment (keep the government out of my life), someone formed or attempted to form a party around this?

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> You are also seeing backlash to Bill Clinton and his attempts at healthcare reform (this would come again during Barak Obama's term and the rise of Tea-party style conservatism against health-care reform and the ensuing spiral into present day conservatism). I do not see it as having to do with healthcare reform, but rather having to do with the wealth transfer necessary to facilitate the healthcare reform. For decades, the progress of certain socioeconomic classes had stalled, even by the 90s. Those classes could see those above them pulling away, but at least they had the comfort of knowing they were not at the bottom. However, the wealth redistribution required for healthcare reform would bring those below them up to their level, or at least remove the veneer of not being near the bottom and no longer being in the same world as those making gains, which is apparently not a preferable situation. In summary, I am pointing to the increasing wealth/income gap and relative movement of various socioeconomic tribes, perhaps inevitable due to technology and the consequences of its economies of scale. As long as the pie is getting bigger, and everyone is getting a bigger slice proportional to the size of their original slice, there is less strife (except at the bottom). Once the sizes of the slices start moving down relative to others’, there starts to be a retreat to tribal affiliations to fight against it.

dfxm12 5y ago

They did so by adopting a national strategy for the entire party, regardless of state, and this probably intensified some conservatism. And Rush Limbaugh's syndication on even FM stations plus the launch of Fox News in the mid 90s helped get that national message across.