3 ms·

It’s not “anarchism” it’s simply rolling back the bad parts of Reagan’s legacy: free trade, immigration/amnesty, and foreign empire. When Democrats embraced fr

It’s not “anarchism” it’s simply rolling back the bad parts of Reagan’s legacy: free trade, immigration/amnesty, and foreign empire. When Democrats embraced free trade and globalism with Clinton, most of the liberal Reagan republicans and neocons became Democrats. What MAGA is today is what the bulk of the GOP has always been: a coalition of social conservatives and business owners.

scarface_74 2y ago
Business owners don’t like the tariffs either. Even American car companies are being hurt by tariffs on steel and car parts.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"Democrats embraced free trade and globalism with Clinton" History would disagree with this. Republicans and Big Business were always for free trade and globalism. Because in 80's-90's, big-corp was salivating over that sweet cheap-cheap foreign labor. To put this on Democrats is a retcon.
- rayiner 2y ago
  No, I agree with you. My point is that Democrats embraced it in the 1990s as well. So the Republicans who were otherwise liberals but just in the GOP for the cheap foreign labor switched sides.
mochomocha 2y ago
What is so bad about free trade? Isn't competition in free markets something Republicans believe in anymore? Because forcing Americans to buy inferior locally-made products at a premium through artificial restrictions surely isn't that. Free trade and globalization are also a pacifying force, by creating mutual dependencies between countries. Protectionism doesn't work.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Tadpole9181 2y ago
    Breitbart is not a reputable source.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - dboreham 2y ago
      No but the point is valid. Say country A decides to protect its environment and hence imposes costly pollution control measures on its manufacturers. Country B meanwhile pollutes to the max. Country B's products are going to be cheaper than country A's. Therefore country A imposing a balancing tarrif on Country B (until they stop polluting) seems at least potentially reasonable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lapcat 2y ago
> What MAGA is today is what the bulk of the GOP has always been: a coalition of social conservatives and business owners. I'm skeptical of this historical analysis. The two major political parties fundamentally realigned during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Before then, Democrats controlled the south. Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964. George Wallace ran for President as a Democrat 3 times before he became an independent. Robert Byrd was a Democrat until the end. Who were the "social conservatives"? Both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon (Californians, by the way) made their names as staunch Cold Warrior anti-Communists during the McCarthy era. I don't think there's any such thing as what "the GOP has always been", or what the Democrats have always been, for that matter. I'm old enough to have seen the parties change several times, and the definitions of "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right" morph into something unrecognizable to former adherents. The only constant is change.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > The two major political parties fundamentally realigned during the civil rights era of the 1960s. This is an incorrect analysis looking at the wrong causal factor (civil rights rather than economics). Even in 1976, Carter did great in the deep south. The realignment happened in the 1980s, due to economic growth in the south. The south went from being poor and agrarian in the 1930s to being newly industrialized in the 1980s. > Who were the "social conservatives"? The 19th century GOP was a coalition of religious conservatives and protectionist industrialists. MAGA is a coalition of religious/cultural conservatives and protectionist industrialists.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > Even in 1976, Carter did great in the deep south. Carter was a southern conservative, deeply, overtly Christian, whereas Ford, the accidental President, was a northerner and social moderate. In any case, Presidential elections are not necessarily the best indicator of political alignment. After all, some were blowouts, such as 1972, 1980, and 1984. On other other hand, note that Lyndon Johnson lost much of the south, except his home state of Texas, despite winning big elsewhere in the country. But for political alignment, you also have to look at local elections, such as state houses. > The realignment happened in the 1980s, due to economic growth in the south. The south went from being poor and agrarian in the 1930s to being newly industrialized in the 1980s. This makes no sense, because first, the south is still poorer, and second, the political correlation you're implying simply doesn't exist. Why would wealth and industrialization turn a state Republican when that doesn't appear to be the case anywhere else in the country? To the contrary, at present the rural areas are solidly Republican and the urban areas solidly Democratic. > The 19th century GOP was a coalition of religious conservatives and protectionist industrialists. I can't say I'm very familiar with the 19th century GOP, and neither of us was alive in the 19th century, but I don't think you've correctly characterized the 20th century GOP. Moreover, I don't think you can characterize "the party of Lincoln" as socially conservative either.

scarface_74 2y ago

Business owners don’t like the tariffs either. Even American car companies are being hurt by tariffs on steel and car parts.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

"Democrats embraced free trade and globalism with Clinton" History would disagree with this. Republicans and Big Business were always for free trade and globalism. Because in 80's-90's, big-corp was salivating over that sweet cheap-cheap foreign labor. To put this on Democrats is a retcon.

rayiner 2y ago
No, I agree with you. My point is that Democrats embraced it in the 1990s as well. So the Republicans who were otherwise liberals but just in the GOP for the cheap foreign labor switched sides.

mochomocha 2y ago

What is so bad about free trade? Isn't competition in free markets something Republicans believe in anymore? Because forcing Americans to buy inferior locally-made products at a premium through artificial restrictions surely isn't that. Free trade and globalization are also a pacifying force, by creating mutual dependencies between countries. Protectionism doesn't work.

rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- Tadpole9181 2y ago
  Breitbart is not a reputable source.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - dboreham 2y ago
    No but the point is valid. Say country A decides to protect its environment and hence imposes costly pollution control measures on its manufacturers. Country B meanwhile pollutes to the max. Country B's products are going to be cheaper than country A's. Therefore country A imposing a balancing tarrif on Country B (until they stop polluting) seems at least potentially reasonable.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lapcat 2y ago

> What MAGA is today is what the bulk of the GOP has always been: a coalition of social conservatives and business owners. I'm skeptical of this historical analysis. The two major political parties fundamentally realigned during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Before then, Democrats controlled the south. Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964. George Wallace ran for President as a Democrat 3 times before he became an independent. Robert Byrd was a Democrat until the end. Who were the "social conservatives"? Both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon (Californians, by the way) made their names as staunch Cold Warrior anti-Communists during the McCarthy era. I don't think there's any such thing as what "the GOP has always been", or what the Democrats have always been, for that matter. I'm old enough to have seen the parties change several times, and the definitions of "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right" morph into something unrecognizable to former adherents. The only constant is change.

rayiner 2y ago
> The two major political parties fundamentally realigned during the civil rights era of the 1960s. This is an incorrect analysis looking at the wrong causal factor (civil rights rather than economics). Even in 1976, Carter did great in the deep south. The realignment happened in the 1980s, due to economic growth in the south. The south went from being poor and agrarian in the 1930s to being newly industrialized in the 1980s. > Who were the "social conservatives"? The 19th century GOP was a coalition of religious conservatives and protectionist industrialists. MAGA is a coalition of religious/cultural conservatives and protectionist industrialists.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Even in 1976, Carter did great in the deep south. Carter was a southern conservative, deeply, overtly Christian, whereas Ford, the accidental President, was a northerner and social moderate. In any case, Presidential elections are not necessarily the best indicator of political alignment. After all, some were blowouts, such as 1972, 1980, and 1984. On other other hand, note that Lyndon Johnson lost much of the south, except his home state of Texas, despite winning big elsewhere in the country. But for political alignment, you also have to look at local elections, such as state houses. > The realignment happened in the 1980s, due to economic growth in the south. The south went from being poor and agrarian in the 1930s to being newly industrialized in the 1980s. This makes no sense, because first, the south is still poorer, and second, the political correlation you're implying simply doesn't exist. Why would wealth and industrialization turn a state Republican when that doesn't appear to be the case anywhere else in the country? To the contrary, at present the rural areas are solidly Republican and the urban areas solidly Democratic. > The 19th century GOP was a coalition of religious conservatives and protectionist industrialists. I can't say I'm very familiar with the 19th century GOP, and neither of us was alive in the 19th century, but I don't think you've correctly characterized the 20th century GOP. Moreover, I don't think you can characterize "the party of Lincoln" as socially conservative either.