Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

[Pyperkub]

I was taking a look at a couple of the memeorandum articles on the VP debate and this line from an admittedly liberal blogstruck me:

Paul Ryan is more than a Gingrich Republican, he’s a Fox Republican. He’s part of the new generation of liars. The Sean Hannity pretty-boys who pretend to play the everyman by putting lipstick on extremism.

Putting aside the obvious bashing, we've debated quite a bit about how it does seem (to me, as well as others such as David Frum) as if the more extreme views in the Republican Party have been driving the agenda lately, and that the party has definitely changed since the Reagan years.

Is there such a thing as a Fox Republican now? How is it different from a Reagan Republican, or a Gingrich Republican? What's driving this, and where is it going?

I think that having a similar discussion about the Democratic party may be interesting, but I haven't seen as much of a shift (though I could well be blind to it, as I see the President as a fairly conservative Democrat) as in the Republican party.

[malchior]

There has definitely been a shift. I have been driven away from the party personally because they have shifted far more to the right and in my opinion use almost purely manipulative techniques to mask this shift to a degree.

An example: The Tax Policy center points out that their budget plan--even when they use extremely rosy projections--would either increase the deficit by a significant amount or require tax increases. Their answer? That the analysis is misleading and we have 6 studies to prove it. When pressed they won't point out what 6 studies these are. So analysts have to guess because there are very few that take this position. Based on best evidence it becomes apparent that most are not really studies by any traditional definition. Polifact called the 6 studies statement (5 studies previously) false about a month ago yet they keep repeating it over and over when their budget is challenged. In general, it seems that we have seen this tact taken quite often from the right lately: make up facts, when challenged mislead, when challenged about misleading just ignore it and repeat the original lie. Now I'm sure that we could find instances from the left of manipulation but IMO it is not so pervasive and persistent as the Republican practice as of late.

Where did this practice come from? Well it is a logical extension of traditional pol behavior but I think that Fox definitely influenced it greatly. Fox has proven that intentionally misleading is effective and the network provides mutual support with the political class to imbue the bullshit with false integrity. I think that is an important distinction, Fox is not just a conservative news network, it has become entwined deeply with the political operations of the Republican party. More so at least than the traditional "liberal" media ever achieved at least.

[msduncan]

There hasn't been a shift and the suggestion that there has is liberal fantasy bullshit. If any shift has happened, it's been the Democrats coming out of the closet in favor of mimicking European policy and society. This was a stigma 15 years ago, but the left has become more brazen and honest about it the past 5 years or so.

What's amusing is the created fantasy about Republicans shifting right. It's simply bullshit. Republicans have always been pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro tax cuts (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), hawkish (Grenada, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Iran I, Iran II).

I understand where some of you might delude yourself thinking Republicans have shifted right. It's easy to mistake when your entire party shifts leftward towards European policy to think the other side shifted and you stayed still. There were a lot of people that thought the Sun revolved around the Earth too. The Democrats are the modern day versions of that.

[Isgrimnur]

It does if you expand the timeline:

Many positions Republicans often tout as traditionally conservative are actually relatively new to GOP ideology. Indeed, although the party’s stance on the issues has shifted rightward over the past 20 years, Republicans have studiously avoided using the word “conservative” in platforms.

For decades, the party presented itself as “moderate” or even “progressive.” The 1960 plank, for example, touts “progressive Republican policies” such as “liberal pay” and says the government “must be truly progressive as an employer.”

In 1972, the platform celebrates Republicans’ use of wage and price controls to curb inflation, a doubling of federal spending on manpower training, and a tripling of help to minorities.

Even the party’s most conservative platforms avoid that word, which first appears in 1992. From the 1960s to 2008, platforms liberally criticize “liberals,” but “conservative” is used almost exclusively to refer to judges.

From the 1960s through the ’80s, each plank reads like a snapshot of its time, capturing the frustrations of the party or the pride of those in power, sometimes wryly needling Democrats, other years slamming them hard. But from the 1990s forward, the platforms exhibit a sameness of rhetorical style, a reflection of the cut-and-paste reality of the computer age, in which entire sentences appear over and over in successive planks.
...
For decades, Republicans emphasize federal funding for public transit. Then, in 1980, a turn: “Republicans reject the elitist notion that Americans must be forced out of their cars. Instead, we vigorously support the right of personal mobility and freedom as exemplified by the automobile.”

Throughout the 1960s and ’70s, the GOP platform includes vigorous support for an equal-rights amendment to protect women. Then, in 1980, the party stalemates: “We acknowledge the legitimate efforts of those who support or oppose ratification.”
...
The first appearance of the abortion issue represents a party very much split between business-oriented moderates and religious conservatives: Abortion “is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue” on which Republicans disagree, the 1976 plank says.

Four years later, the issue has been settled: The GOP seeks a constitutional amendment protecting “the right to life for unborn children.” By 1992, the platform includes a call to appoint judges who oppose abortion.
...
In 1960, Republicans give “firm support” to “the union shop and other forms of union security” and say that “Republican conscience and Republican policy require that the annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled.” Four years later, the GOP bashes Democrats for being “federal extremists” wedded to an ever more intrusive central government.

It's a four page article and a fascinating read.

[Remus West]

There hasn't been a shift and the suggestion that there has is liberal fantasy bullshit. If any shift has happened, it's been the Democrats coming out of the closet in favor of mimicking European policy and society. This was a stigma 15 years ago, but the left has become more brazen and honest about it the past 5 years or so.

What's amusing is the created fantasy about Republicans shifting right. It's simply bullshit. Republicans have always been pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro tax cuts (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), hawkish (Grenada, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Iran I, Iran II).

I understand where some of you might delude yourself thinking Republicans have shifted right. It's easy to mistake when your entire party shifts leftward towards European policy to think the other side shifted and you stayed still. There were a lot of people that thought the Sun revolved around the Earth too. The Democrats are the modern day versions of that.

Bush I raised taxes - remember the whole "Read my lips" thing? The tax rate on the wealthy during the Regan era was much much higher than the current one.

The difference on both sides is the ability of the lunatic fringes to make themselves heard and their tenacity at making themselves the story. I will say it seems the right has many more of their extreme members in higher places *cough* legitimate rape*cough* and supports them when their particular lunacy fades from the spotlight.

[RunningMn9]

Yes, the party has shifted to a more extreme version of itself. Those that have shifted with it are likely unable to notice though. SEE: msduncan's post.

[YellowKing]

I understand where MSD's coming from in terms of the idea that general policy stances haven't shifted much, but I think "entrenchment" in those policies may be the shift we're seeing that is causing some more moderate conservatives like myself to bail on the hard social right-wingers.

There's no doubt that the country is more polarized now than it has ever been in my lifetime. If party stances on the big issues haven't changed, that must mean that the least moderate elements of the party (i.e. those that are most immovable on their stances) must have greater control and influence.

[malchior]

Yes, the party has shifted to a more extreme version of itself. Those that have shifted with it are likely unable to notice though. SEE: msduncan's post.

Yep complete with the invective use of the liberal title.

[malchior]

I understand where MSD's coming from in terms of the idea that general policy stances haven't shifted much, but I think "entrenchment" in those policies may be the shift we're seeing that is causing some more moderate conservatives like myself to bail on the hard social right-wingers.

There's no doubt that the country is more polarized now than it has ever been in my lifetime. If party stances on the big issues haven't changed, that must mean that the least moderate elements of the party (i.e. those that are most immovable on their stances) must have greater control and influence.

See this is where I disagree. It is not just about social right-wingers. The party's tax policy stance for instance is insane and the theories they use to justify it are completely fabricated. No tax increases of any sort while deficits are exploding and they are frothing about deficits being out of control....is just loony tunes. I support an honest discussion about tax policy because overall it is a total mess but when you dig into any Republican proposal it is not about solving the fiscal problem it is entirely about them entrenching power. The Democrats have a similar problem--they are responsible for a decent amount of rent seeking as well--but it is not nearly so destructive in its scale.

[Pyperkub]

There hasn't been a shift and the suggestion that there has is liberal fantasy bullshit. If any shift has happened, it's been the Democrats coming out of the closet in favor of mimicking European policy and society. This was a stigma 15 years ago, but the left has become more brazen and honest about it the past 5 years or so.

What's amusing is the created fantasy about Republicans shifting right. It's simply bullshit. Republicans have always been pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro tax cuts (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), hawkish (Grenada, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Iran I, Iran II).

I understand where some of you might delude yourself thinking Republicans have shifted right. It's easy to mistake when your entire party shifts leftward towards European policy to think the other side shifted and you stayed still. There were a lot of people that thought the Sun revolved around the Earth too. The Democrats are the modern day versions of that.

OK, but how do you reconcile this with the fact that both Nixon and Gingrich (and Romney) essentially supported the general Health Care plan that became Obamacare in previous decades?

Is it just that those were compromise positions that were never to actually be met, but designed to prevent a Health Care overhaul from happening, or do as much to limit it as possible? Maybe because the traditional Democratic Majorities in Congress that held from 1955-1995 disappeared in the Gingrich revolution?

Alternatively, that Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 raised taxes to levels higher than they currently are, but that raising taxes is currently considered Socialism with a capital 'S' amongst what appears to be the majority of self-identified Republicans. So while they may have believed that tax cuts were a good, they also seemed to think that taxes served a valid purpose as well.

These strike me as much more extreme positions than the Republican party staked out for the majority of the latter half of the 20th Century, and I would especially welcome your thoughtful input.

[Kraken]

It's a wag the dog situation. Evangelicals and their ilk have always been part of the Republican base, but only recently have they come to dominate the agenda. In the past, the party paid just enough lip service to their goals to keep them in line, then backed away from them when the rubber met the road -- just as Romney did to win the nomination and then shed the "extreme conservative" act to run in the general election.

So the question is, how did the radical conservatives (shouldn't that be a contradiction?) gain control over the party, and can they be marginalized again now that moderates are retiring or changing their stripes?

I can see two possible futures: The Republican Party relegates itself to being a regional power with a solid base in the red states, but they can't win national elections. They become a permanent minority spoiler party dedicated to gumming up the works.

Or, they split. The Tea Party wing becomes a real, independent third party and the Republican Party is freed to be serious about governing again. The Tea Party eventually fizzles out as all third parties do in our winner-take-all system and its members reluctantly rejoin the Republicans as the marginal voice that they historically were.

I think a split is inevitable, but I don't know how or when.

Now, to undercut my entire argument...the fact that moderate Romney finally did win the nomination is evidence that the lunatics are not, in fact, running the asylum yet. What really bears watching is what happens if Romney loses this election. One faction will argue that it's because they nominated a filthy compromising moderate, while the other will argue that the radicals weakened him. Does the party lurch even further to the right again, or does it try to reclaim the center?

[GreenGoo]

There hasn't been a shift and the suggestion that there has is liberal fantasy bullshit. If any shift has happened, it's been the Democrats coming out of the closet in favor of mimicking European policy and society. This was a stigma 15 years ago, but the left has become more brazen and honest about it the past 5 years or so.

What's amusing is the created fantasy about Republicans shifting right. It's simply bullshit. Republicans have always been pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro tax cuts (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), hawkish (Grenada, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Iran I, Iran II).

I understand where some of you might delude yourself thinking Republicans have shifted right. It's easy to mistake when your entire party shifts leftward towards European policy to think the other side shifted and you stayed still. There were a lot of people that thought the Sun revolved around the Earth too. The Democrats are the modern day versions of that.

Right back at ya.

The democrats haven't had any social programs going on for quite awhile. While arguably health care is the biggest social program ever (next to social security I guess) it has basically turned out to be forced consumerism. There hasn't been a "for the people" movement at the party level in decades.

The fact that things like abortion and contraception are being discussed, while social programs directed at the poor are basically non-existent, means to me that one side of this bullshit argument is closer to the truth than the other side.

the left is FAR, FAR closer to center than it has ever been, while the right is run by mouth pieces like Rush and the Tea Party. Just look at the candidates the Republicans had to choose from. The reason Romney hasn't held a solid position (in public) is because his own party would disown him if he let his real thoughts be known.

[Holman]

Or, they split. The Tea Party wing becomes a real, independent third party and the Republican Party is freed to be serious about governing again. The Tea Party eventually fizzles out as all third parties do in our winner-take-all system and its members reluctantly rejoin the Republicans as the marginal voice that they historically were.

That's a dramatic scenario, but does the math add up? The Tea Party and the Christian Right are natural bedfellows (even when they don't coexist in the same person), and they are the core base to which all GOP candidates must appeal. If they somehow split and re-branded under a new flag, it's the remaining rump of the GOP that would become the irrelevant third party. The last few elections have shown that the GOP is way more Bachmann than Huntsman, especially in the House and in Red State government.

[silverjon]

There were a lot of people that thought the Sun revolved around the Earth too. The Democrats are the modern day versions of that.

No, no. As far as I can tell, the modern-day versions of that prefer to not associate with either major political party in the USA.

But let's not talk about Young Earth Creationism, right?

[Kraken]

Or, they split. The Tea Party wing becomes a real, independent third party and the Republican Party is freed to be serious about governing again. The Tea Party eventually fizzles out as all third parties do in our winner-take-all system and its members reluctantly rejoin the Republicans as the marginal voice that they historically were.

That's a dramatic scenario, but does the math add up? The Tea Party and the Christian Right are natural bedfellows (even when they don't coexist in the same person), and they are the core base to which all GOP candidates must appeal. If they somehow split and re-branded under a new flag, it's the remaining rump of the GOP that would become the irrelevant third party. The last few elections have shown that the GOP is way more Bachmann than Huntsman, especially in the House and in Red State government.

I think of the evangelical/tea party wing as being small but loud, seizing the spotlight while mainstream Republicans try to distance themselves. But I admittedly live in a liberal echo chamber, where the thought of the wingnuts as an actual majority is hard to believe. My hunch is that the party leadership and rank-and-file members would be glad to be rid of them.

Maybe you're right and the center has really been that hollowed out over these past few years. From what I see here, formerly mainstream conservatives are rebranding themselves as libertarians and dropping out of the Republican Party.

There is a big market in this country for a socially liberal/fiscally conservative party. Maybe the Libertarian Party will rise to fill that need.

[Holman]

I think of the evangelical/tea party wing as being small but loud, seizing the spotlight while mainstream Republicans try to distance themselves. But I admittedly live in a liberal echo chamber, where the thought of the wingnuts as an actual majority is hard to believe. My hunch is that the party leadership and rank-and-file members would be glad to be rid of them.

Maybe you're right and the center has really been that hollowed out over these past few years. From what I see here, formerly mainstream conservatives are rebranding themselves as libertarians and dropping out of the Republican Party.

There is a big market in this country for a socially liberal/fiscally conservative party. Maybe the Libertarian Party will rise to fill that need.

That might be geography talking--you live in a place where there actually *are* mainstream Republicans uncomfortable with the Texas or Kansas GOP platforms. Scott Brown would have been lynched as a RINO in any Red State primary.

It's telling that the libertarians are dropping out the GOP. The Tea Party and the Religious Right aren't dropping out--it's their party now, and they know it. It's possible that there are two Republican parties under one label (just like the two Democratic parties of the 1950's and 60's), but are there enough socially moderate conservatives to survive on their own? Outside of Blue states, especially?

Looking at GOP primaries in the states that actually deliver Red electoral votes: how often do social conservatives lose to social moderates? Romney won this year (and only by sounding like a social conservative), but I think the House and state government races tell the real story of the party.

[RunningMn9]

There were a lot of people that thought the Sun revolved around the Earth too. The Democrats are the modern day versions of that.

You know that there are still people that believe that - and that they aren't liberals, right?

[Canuck]

Only people like MSD would say that that the obvious Democratic party move to the center was actually a move left. It only seems like they've moved to the left to him because his party has moved so far to the right. Perception can be a wonderful thing.

[em2nought]

There is a big market in this country for a socially liberal/fiscally conservative party. Maybe the Libertarian Party will rise to fill that need.

Where do I sign up?

[Combustible Lemur]

I think perhaps it's not the parties that are moving, so much as the culture. From msduncan's position people are moving left even though those people see themselves as center. The center is moving. It's the problem with being conservative, if your stay in one place, the world moves past. Also the problem with being leading progressive (liberal), you're trying to make some changes without the benefit of hindsight, and always pushing the edges. Whereas people in the center are slowly walking with progress, adjusting and modifying what works and doesn't. (or trying to anyway) The people on either side freak out and start shouting because because the world is too slow or too fast or not changed enough, or not what they thought they knew. I think the Republican's as a party sold themselves out with Karl Rove during Clinton. And the world shifted under the center leaving the Republican's under the new right rather than the center they had been.

Sent from mah Incredible'

[GreenGoo]

Socially, the culture absolutely has moved left, so I will give MSD that. I don't see this forum fighting over social issues very often though, which is why I didn't think to mention it prior.

[Combustible Lemur]

Socially, the culture absolutely has moved left, so I will give MSD that. I don't see this forum fighting over social issues very often though, which is why I didn't think to mention it prior.

Even with fiscal issues though, with globalization the center is finding areas of economy that need approached differently and not just ignored. For someone who really believes free market it looks closer to socialism now, for someone socialist it looks like the free market is running wild with record profits. To the middle it looks like same shit, different day new old problems.

[Defiant]

On some issues, it has moved left - gay rights being the clearest example.

Some have stayed the same of even moved to the right: abortion, gun rights, civil liberties

[Defiant]

There is a big market in this country for a socially liberal/fiscally conservative party

I tried to find the percentage of people that fit that identification.

Six percent (6%) are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[Combustible Lemur]

On some issues, it has moved left - gay rights being the clearest example.

Some have stayed the same of even moved to the right: abortion, gun rights, civil liberties

Has the culture moved right or the political policies? Some of the laws are a response to the people stretching the limits. Guns more gun laws because of abuses and reactionism. Abortion a reaction to more openness and availability. Peolple just didn't talk about abortion and unwanted pregnancy before. Civil liberties we can say and do things that our parents could never do, and politics has used this freedom as cover to vastly increase the surveillance state.

[Defiant]

On some issues, it has moved left - gay rights being the clearest example.

Some have stayed the same of even moved to the right: abortion, gun rights, civil liberties

Has the culture moved right or the political policies? Some of the laws are a response to the people stretching the limits. Guns more gun laws because of abuses and reactionism. Abortion a reaction to more openness and availability. Peolple just didn't talk about abortion and unwanted pregnancy before. Civil liberties we can say and do things that our parents could never do, and politics has used this freedom as cover to vastly increase the surveillance state.

Well, there seems to be less push for gun control than in the past.

As to abortion, from what I remember readings, it's the result of groups that traditionally didn't used to be politically active (namely, the religious right) becoming more active and going out and voting.

And I do think people are less actively pro-civil liberties than they were in, say, the 70s.

[Kraken]

It's telling that the libertarians are dropping out the GOP. The Tea Party and the Religious Right aren't dropping out--it's their party now, and they know it. It's possible that there are two Republican parties under one label (just like the two Democratic parties of the 1950's and 60's), but are there enough socially moderate conservatives to survive on their own?.

Time is on their side.

Since my link is probably paywalled, here's most of the text:

If demographics is destiny, the Republican Party has a rendezvous with irrelevance — unless its policies change. This is the message some Republican leaders have been sending in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign. “The demographics race we’re losing badly,” Senator Lindsey Graham recently told the Washington Post with characteristic bluntness. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

The numbers tell the tale. Minorities have accounted for 85 percent of the country’s population growth over the past decade, according to the US Census Bureau. A record 24 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election, up 22 percent since 2008. Meanwhile, nearly 87 percent of registered Republican voters are white. And whites have declined as a portion of the electorate in every presidential election since 1992.

It’s getting harder and harder to cobble together a winning coalition based on the grievances of a diminishing faction of white men, and many Republicans know it. An unnamed strategist was quoted in the National Journal in August explaining that Mitt Romney campaign’s formula for winning the presidency involves capturing 61 percent of the white vote (more than any candidate since Ronald Reagan). “This is the last time anyone will try to do this,” the strategist said.

... Is it any surprise that of the 34 states introducing voter ID bills last year, 33 had Republican-majority legislatures?

For four decades national Republicans have pursued a strategy, often successful, of racking up huge majorities of white male voters and winning just enough others to carry the day. The orthodoxy is deeply set by now. George W. Bush, John McCain, and more recently, Rick Perry were blasted for making overtures to immigrants that might antagonize the party’s base.

...

In June, Pennsylvania’s majority leader boasted to a Republican committee meeting that a strict new voter ID law there “is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” Democrats seized on this statement as proof that so-called “election integrity” laws are simply intended to stop minorities from voting. This would seem cynical, or paranoid, except that no substantial evidence of intentional election-day voter fraud has ever been presented. These laws are a solution in search of a problem.

Republicans are facing a serious quandary of electoral math. They should be working to broaden their party’s appeal and build a true majority of voters, not treating America like it is one nation, divisible.

If 87% of Republicans are white, then it's safe to assume that nearly 100% of tea party evangelical types are white. Also, if his opponent were not black, would Mitt really have a shot at capturing 61% of the white vote? I'm guessing that's the reason that "this is the last time anyone will try to do this."

Anyway, to bring this full circle...those angry white male tea partiers have an expiration date stamped on them, and that alone should limit their ability to hijack the Republican Party.

[Rip]

Are you saying that if Obama wasn't black he would win hand down? I find that a little offensive. Just as I would expect people to react poorly if I said that if Obama were white he would have never had a chance to get elected. Linking so many things to race is kind of....racist.

[Kraken]

No, I'm saying that Romney can target 61% of the white vote because he can count on 100% of the racist vote, which would not be true if the incumbent were white. That's the subtext that I see behind (an unnamed source) saying that “This is the last time anyone will try to do this.”

As to how many white voters are racist, and what percentage of those would ever vote for a Democrat under any circumstances...your guess is as good as mine. Could be such a small number as to be completely irrelevant.

[Defiant]

No, I'm saying that Romney can target 61% of the white vote because he can count on 100% of the racist vote, which would not be true if the incumbent were white.

I don't think that's true. Even limiting it to people that are racist against black people, I think there are some people that might vote for Obama because despite their anti-black feelings, Obama's actions as president have been sufficient to persuade them to vote for him (in other words, Obama might have had a harder time getting their vote, but he managed to do it).

[Kraken]

No, I'm saying that Romney can target 61% of the white vote because he can count on 100% of the racist vote, which would not be true if the incumbent were white.

I don't think that's true. Even limiting it to people that are racist against black people, I think there are some people that might vote for Obama because despite their anti-black feelings, Obama's actions as president have been sufficient to persuade them to vote for him (in other words, Obama might have had a harder time getting their vote, but he managed to do it).

Maybe, but that's getting into such a minority of a minority that it doesn't matter. My own argument is weakened by not knowing how many whites will cast their votes on the basis of race, so I don't want to press it.

I'm still wrapping my head around 87% of Republicans being white. I've never heard that statistic before, yet this columnist tossed it out like it was common knowledge.

[Holman]

I don't think anti-black racism is producing extra votes against Obama because the same folks would have rejected *any* liberal candidate, no matter how white. They don't get to vote harder out of sheer bigotry.

I do think there's racism in the some of the weirder turns the anti-Obama narrative has taken. This has changed the tone of politics, but it probably hasn't affected vote tallies. The same folks would have hated Hillary just as much (but with different conspiracy theories).

[Kraken]

I don't think anti-black racism is producing extra votes against Obama because the same folks would have rejected *any* liberal candidate, no matter how white. They don't get to vote harder out of sheer bigotry.

Plus that same blind bigotry didn't put McCain in office, so why would it make a difference now?

[tgb]

<Mort Sahl>* 40 years ago the right had pundits like Barry Goldwater and William Buckley. Today it has Sean, Rush, & Ann Coulter. What conclusion can be drawn from this?

Spoiler:

Darwin may have been wrong.

*Kids, ask your parents

[Holman]

Here's a New Republic article making the rounds: How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates, a history of the conservative movement's struggle to purge the GOP.

[Kraken]

Here's a New Republic article making the rounds: How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates, a history of the conservative movement's struggle to purge the GOP.

Good read. I wish it had addressed Romney's nomination more directly, since that partially belies the contention that the lunatics are running the asylum. But that's outside the scope of a nominal book review.

[El Guapo]

Here's a New Republic article making the rounds: How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates, a history of the conservative movement's struggle to purge the GOP.

Good read. I wish it had addressed Romney's nomination more directly, since that partially belies the contention that the lunatics are running the asylum. But that's outside the scope of a nominal book review.

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

[GreenGoo]

Here's a New Republic article making the rounds: How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates, a history of the conservative movement's struggle to purge the GOP.

Good read. I wish it had addressed Romney's nomination more directly, since that partially belies the contention that the lunatics are running the asylum. But that's outside the scope of a nominal book review.

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

I haven't had a chance to read the article, but how does the article plus tgb's post explain that voting lines have not changes much overall?

It seems to me that despite the (apparent) move to the right of the republican party, they continue to achieve the same percentage (give or take) of votes that they always have.

If the republican party is alienating moderates and becoming more extreme, why is the party still viable at the national election level?

[YellowKing]

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

That doesn't explain John McCain's nomination though. I don't recall him moving significantly to the right (at least not the way Mitt did).

[El Guapo]

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

That doesn't explain John McCain's nomination though. I don't recall him moving significantly to the right (at least not the way Mitt did).

He did, though it's true that it wasn't as bad as Mitt's move. Or at least, he was better at not sounding like a lunatic while doing so. Also, the Tea Party wasn't as dominant in 2007-2008 as in 2011-2012.