3 ms·

Well, the first time around was Bush's re-election.

pavlov 2y ago
It’s pretty wild that the Republican Party has transformed so much that GWB and Cheney don’t vote for it anymore. It’s only been 16 years since they left office. (Cheney is officially supporting Harris, and Bush clearly is not on Team MAGA either.)
- asveikau 2y ago
  This is off topic, but I don't see Bush/Cheney as very different from Trump, and there is a straight line between those. The biggest contrast is that Trump jettisoned decorum and politeness. Bush was outwardly polite as he enacted the same kind of policy. I mean, the appointment of Samuel Alito is a prime example. Look how the Bush court appointments are unleashed now that they've got a few more like-minded colleagues.
  - krapp 2y ago
    Yeah, I don't know why Trump is seen as such an iconoclast and anti-establishment type when politically he's a boilerplate establishment Fox News conservative. His personality is really the only thing that distinguishes him from the pack.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      Two things stand out: 1) Positions and messaging strategy. Trump tends to take up the positions you hear Republican voters talk about over a coffee at the diner or over a beer on an aluminum-hull outboard motor fishing boat. As with Democrats, typical Republican planks aren’t terribly close to what their voters want, so (Trump proved) you can win elections by targeting this unmet demand directly. “Why don’t they just build a wall?”; “Fucking NAFTA, sold us all out”; “gotta do something about that trade deficit with China” and/or other comments on restricting trade with China; “Obamacare sucks” but also kinda vaguely supporting something to fix healthcare (this muddled set of positions came out rather directly in Trump’s speeches—sometimes it’d sound like he was about to advocate single payer); “we should stop being the world police for free” and/or “Europe’s freeloading on NATO”; lots of complaints about illegal immigration’s and crime generally; Washington corruption (“drain the swamp!”); et c. If you know many Republican voters, not politicians, you may recognize that as stuff that’d inform their wishlist. Trump heard that, and just… did exactly that, turned around and said exactly those things instead of taking up the typical Republican platform. Got him elected. He even sort-of followed through on some of it. This is true for at least the first election, his positions this time seem to have gone a bit more tail-wagging-the-dog (creating issues and demand for a particular solution to the created issue, through messaging, rather than going to where voters already are on existing issues) 2) Relatedly, and especially because he did follow through on some of it, he’s the only big two party Presidential candidate since perhaps 1980 to not be fully on-board with neoliberalism. That’s definitely remarkable. Vance alluded to this at one point in the recent debate. (Disclaimer because it’s a polarizing topic: observation without condemnation should not be taken as support)
    - psb217 2y ago
      There's a big practical difference between chewing coca leaves and smoking crack. Also, the shift in personality and tone from Bush to Trump are... not small. The inconoclast and anti-establishment things are intentional, effective and, as you note, somewhat hypocritical branding on the part of Trump's PR team. After sitting through a few of his full length >1hr "speeches", it's incredible (in the strongest, most literal sense of that word) that he can even exist as a viable political candidate. If he were magically teleported back in time to the GW Bush years, current Trump would be laughed out of the room in pretty much any political setting.
      - asveikau 2y ago
        > If he were magically teleported back in time to the GW Bush years, current Trump would be laughed out of the room in pretty much any political setting. That's really not how I see it. Trump sits on the shoulders of those who came before and set the stage for the Trump policy. My Alito example above is an instructive one. Bush can be seen as laying a 20 year foundation towards overturning Roe or the Chevron doctrine. I remember when Roberts was appointed, mainstream press talked up how moderate and reasonable he was, but I never bought it -- and how we see he isn't. The rhetoric appeals to the base... But that base got radicalized by prior eras. Decades of complaining about big government. Fox News demonizing Pelosi and "San Francisco values". Karl Rove's permanent campaign mode. Much of that discourse was fully formed in 2004. The Bush people knew to reign it in sometimes, that is the difference.
        psb217 2y ago
        In this case I'm talking strictly about his persona, on-stage performance, and overall "vibe". To an extent, these traits are orthogonal to his claimed policy/politics in the traditional sense, which I agree are basically a continuation and in particular areas an amplification of earlier trends in the Republican party. Eg, I grew up in Houston in the 80s and 90s with parents that listened to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis, so the general direction of intent isn't unexpected. The way in which that intent is expressed is however well outside what would have ever made it to the "main stage" 20-30 years ago. It's a culmination of decades of propagandic ground laying. I suppose "any political setting" was too broad a claim. I was implicitly ignoring anything short of running for national office.
    - Slava_Propanei 2y ago
      [dead]
  - amy-petrik-214 2y ago
    Well after Bush and his comrades Dick and Colon (nee Cheney; Powell), we had the TEA PARTY MOVEMENTS whose thesis was very simple: "politicians, as people, they suck, 400 million are suffering for their aggrandizing shittiness, lets get some people in there to fuck some shit up". And so they did, and they did. And this become the new norm. And now DC had been made even further ugly and toxic. Then Trump appeared, and he basically said the same exact thing as the tea party movement "Draiiinnn the Swap!!", and now - yes - even more ugly and toxic. All of these has been fueled by social media, which to reduce some of the complexities, determined that "if we divide and polarize american politics we make boatloads of money"
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]

It’s pretty wild that the Republican Party has transformed so much that GWB and Cheney don’t vote for it anymore. It’s only been 16 years since they left office. (Cheney is officially supporting Harris, and Bush clearly is not on Team MAGA either.)

asveikau 2y ago
This is off topic, but I don't see Bush/Cheney as very different from Trump, and there is a straight line between those. The biggest contrast is that Trump jettisoned decorum and politeness. Bush was outwardly polite as he enacted the same kind of policy. I mean, the appointment of Samuel Alito is a prime example. Look how the Bush court appointments are unleashed now that they've got a few more like-minded colleagues.
- krapp 2y ago
  Yeah, I don't know why Trump is seen as such an iconoclast and anti-establishment type when politically he's a boilerplate establishment Fox News conservative. His personality is really the only thing that distinguishes him from the pack.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Two things stand out: 1) Positions and messaging strategy. Trump tends to take up the positions you hear Republican voters talk about over a coffee at the diner or over a beer on an aluminum-hull outboard motor fishing boat. As with Democrats, typical Republican planks aren’t terribly close to what their voters want, so (Trump proved) you can win elections by targeting this unmet demand directly. “Why don’t they just build a wall?”; “Fucking NAFTA, sold us all out”; “gotta do something about that trade deficit with China” and/or other comments on restricting trade with China; “Obamacare sucks” but also kinda vaguely supporting something to fix healthcare (this muddled set of positions came out rather directly in Trump’s speeches—sometimes it’d sound like he was about to advocate single payer); “we should stop being the world police for free” and/or “Europe’s freeloading on NATO”; lots of complaints about illegal immigration’s and crime generally; Washington corruption (“drain the swamp!”); et c. If you know many Republican voters, not politicians, you may recognize that as stuff that’d inform their wishlist. Trump heard that, and just… did exactly that, turned around and said exactly those things instead of taking up the typical Republican platform. Got him elected. He even sort-of followed through on some of it. This is true for at least the first election, his positions this time seem to have gone a bit more tail-wagging-the-dog (creating issues and demand for a particular solution to the created issue, through messaging, rather than going to where voters already are on existing issues) 2) Relatedly, and especially because he did follow through on some of it, he’s the only big two party Presidential candidate since perhaps 1980 to not be fully on-board with neoliberalism. That’s definitely remarkable. Vance alluded to this at one point in the recent debate. (Disclaimer because it’s a polarizing topic: observation without condemnation should not be taken as support)
  - psb217 2y ago
    There's a big practical difference between chewing coca leaves and smoking crack. Also, the shift in personality and tone from Bush to Trump are... not small. The inconoclast and anti-establishment things are intentional, effective and, as you note, somewhat hypocritical branding on the part of Trump's PR team. After sitting through a few of his full length >1hr "speeches", it's incredible (in the strongest, most literal sense of that word) that he can even exist as a viable political candidate. If he were magically teleported back in time to the GW Bush years, current Trump would be laughed out of the room in pretty much any political setting.
    - asveikau 2y ago
      > If he were magically teleported back in time to the GW Bush years, current Trump would be laughed out of the room in pretty much any political setting. That's really not how I see it. Trump sits on the shoulders of those who came before and set the stage for the Trump policy. My Alito example above is an instructive one. Bush can be seen as laying a 20 year foundation towards overturning Roe or the Chevron doctrine. I remember when Roberts was appointed, mainstream press talked up how moderate and reasonable he was, but I never bought it -- and how we see he isn't. The rhetoric appeals to the base... But that base got radicalized by prior eras. Decades of complaining about big government. Fox News demonizing Pelosi and "San Francisco values". Karl Rove's permanent campaign mode. Much of that discourse was fully formed in 2004. The Bush people knew to reign it in sometimes, that is the difference.
      - psb217 2y ago
        In this case I'm talking strictly about his persona, on-stage performance, and overall "vibe". To an extent, these traits are orthogonal to his claimed policy/politics in the traditional sense, which I agree are basically a continuation and in particular areas an amplification of earlier trends in the Republican party. Eg, I grew up in Houston in the 80s and 90s with parents that listened to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis, so the general direction of intent isn't unexpected. The way in which that intent is expressed is however well outside what would have ever made it to the "main stage" 20-30 years ago. It's a culmination of decades of propagandic ground laying. I suppose "any political setting" was too broad a claim. I was implicitly ignoring anything short of running for national office.
  - Slava_Propanei 2y ago
    [dead]
- amy-petrik-214 2y ago
  Well after Bush and his comrades Dick and Colon (nee Cheney; Powell), we had the TEA PARTY MOVEMENTS whose thesis was very simple: "politicians, as people, they suck, 400 million are suffering for their aggrandizing shittiness, lets get some people in there to fuck some shit up". And so they did, and they did. And this become the new norm. And now DC had been made even further ugly and toxic. Then Trump appeared, and he basically said the same exact thing as the tea party movement "Draiiinnn the Swap!!", and now - yes - even more ugly and toxic. All of these has been fueled by social media, which to reduce some of the complexities, determined that "if we divide and polarize american politics we make boatloads of money"
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]