There are a lot of weird misconceptions about the political history of immigration policy in this column. Capitalists generally backed more immigration while labor leaders, such as Samuel Gompers, called for immigration restriction to boost wages.
16
Both parties need to go away.
2016 has made that clear.
2016 has made that clear.
17
The Republican Party, as I knew it under Eisenhower, disappeared when Dixiecrats, disgruntled over LBJ's passage of Civil rights in 1964, decided that they disliked racial integration more than they disliked the memory of Lincoln. What an "honorable" heritage.
They truly deserve the label "Know Nothings". They have an abiding distrust of education and science, but worst of all, they do not like Democracy.
They truly deserve the label "Know Nothings". They have an abiding distrust of education and science, but worst of all, they do not like Democracy.
52
Curious question: "What if Mr. Trump’s achievement turns out to be not just hijacking the party of Ronald Reagan, but catalyzing its disintegration?"
The Republican Party which Ronald Reagan would recognize has already been hijacked by The TEA PARTY.
As for the disintegration of the Republicans -- that was predicted in March 2014, with the publication of "Death Over Life: A Prophecy of America's Destruction"
[http://www.amazon.com/Death-Over-Life-Revelation-Destruction/dp/1497427169]
We are now watching the Party finalize its destruction.
The only real issue is the one of the Clinton-Sanders game. Will the Democrats create an environment that allows THE DONALD to become POTUS -- a job for which he is not qualified, and which would be destructive to his Financial Empire (Terrorists would target anything having the TRUMP brand association, and thereby demonstrate the weakness of America to defend its own assets or those of its POTUS).
The Republican Party which Ronald Reagan would recognize has already been hijacked by The TEA PARTY.
As for the disintegration of the Republicans -- that was predicted in March 2014, with the publication of "Death Over Life: A Prophecy of America's Destruction"
[http://www.amazon.com/Death-Over-Life-Revelation-Destruction/dp/1497427169]
We are now watching the Party finalize its destruction.
The only real issue is the one of the Clinton-Sanders game. Will the Democrats create an environment that allows THE DONALD to become POTUS -- a job for which he is not qualified, and which would be destructive to his Financial Empire (Terrorists would target anything having the TRUMP brand association, and thereby demonstrate the weakness of America to defend its own assets or those of its POTUS).
8
Trump will make the GOP's nadir under Nixon seem like a walk in the woods.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
9
If by some fluke Trump is elected, will we have a Mao-style Cultural Revolution, with professors sent to the coal mines and old white guys searching out dissidents the way the Chinese students did?
18
This is just typical Democratic propaganda or blindness. The white working class are voting for Trump and Sanders because Obama followed Citigroup's asset stimulus program to inflate the market (it has tripled) through QEs, outsourcing and high immigration that, according to the Fed, resulted in lower wages for 90% of the population.
This is a New Deal election like 1932 where the Prohibition cultural issue disappeared. and the white population is voting on economic issues. The blacks are still voting on the issue of racial grievance, even when Sanders clearly is closer to them on economic issues. In the fall their turnout will drop because Trump is to the left of Clinton, and then in his first term, Trump will really court them to overcome the divide-and-conquer strategy vis-a-vis the middle income and lower income whites and minorities that Wilentz espouses.
The interesting question is whether this is 1933 when FDR moved the Democrats from the right side of the political spectrum to the left. Trump is certainly doing this in reverse in this election, but that is because Hillary is the Goldwater activist who remains that far right. But will Trump make it permanent in 2017? That remains unknown.
This is a New Deal election like 1932 where the Prohibition cultural issue disappeared. and the white population is voting on economic issues. The blacks are still voting on the issue of racial grievance, even when Sanders clearly is closer to them on economic issues. In the fall their turnout will drop because Trump is to the left of Clinton, and then in his first term, Trump will really court them to overcome the divide-and-conquer strategy vis-a-vis the middle income and lower income whites and minorities that Wilentz espouses.
The interesting question is whether this is 1933 when FDR moved the Democrats from the right side of the political spectrum to the left. Trump is certainly doing this in reverse in this election, but that is because Hillary is the Goldwater activist who remains that far right. But will Trump make it permanent in 2017? That remains unknown.
9
This is a comprehensive, incisive, historically referenced guide to what is happening now in America in a virtual nutshell. To one of the best thinkers Princeton has to offer, thank you.
The so called social conservatives and evangelicals have been "along for the ride" in the Republican party, most likely out of alienation and resentment of many Democrats: hippie "types", bohemians, gays, urbanites, the over educated, the sophisticates, the whole kaboodle of east and west coasts cool people who, with money in hand, have sort of left the middle of America behind, the midlanders who live in another mental era and try to cope, or fight, this one. These social hardliners believe they are at war with the modern world, at war with the rest of us and, because they believe it, they are.
They were backassed wrong to ever look to any political movement for the "hold back the tide" change they wanted. They were even more wrong to look to govt. to achieve those goals, even while the prayed for smaller govt. Now, they want to get off the boat.
They delight in the sophisticates shaking in their boots over the idea of Trump in the White House, laughing to themselves: "We'll show them!"
Republicans chose the wrong strategy to deal with Obama. They should have given him parts of what he wanted and attacked him for getting them. Instead, they chose endless obstruction based on the Gingrichian concept that you don't, ever, "go along to get along". They lit the fuse for Trump.
Doug Terry
The so called social conservatives and evangelicals have been "along for the ride" in the Republican party, most likely out of alienation and resentment of many Democrats: hippie "types", bohemians, gays, urbanites, the over educated, the sophisticates, the whole kaboodle of east and west coasts cool people who, with money in hand, have sort of left the middle of America behind, the midlanders who live in another mental era and try to cope, or fight, this one. These social hardliners believe they are at war with the modern world, at war with the rest of us and, because they believe it, they are.
They were backassed wrong to ever look to any political movement for the "hold back the tide" change they wanted. They were even more wrong to look to govt. to achieve those goals, even while the prayed for smaller govt. Now, they want to get off the boat.
They delight in the sophisticates shaking in their boots over the idea of Trump in the White House, laughing to themselves: "We'll show them!"
Republicans chose the wrong strategy to deal with Obama. They should have given him parts of what he wanted and attacked him for getting them. Instead, they chose endless obstruction based on the Gingrichian concept that you don't, ever, "go along to get along". They lit the fuse for Trump.
Doug Terry
17
Wouldn't be concerned if the GOP breaks up. All of Human participation in history impinges on today, but that has always been true. The current political contest is between the Left (The State) and the Nation (The People). Over the long run, The People always win, and the State that fails to serve The People (The Nation) always loses.
The only question is how much bloodshed must occur to return America to a Democracy that favors the Nation (People) over the State (Elites). The Political Revolution of Trump is far better than a violent revolution which Democracy was invented to replace.
Would be better if economic Class Warfare would end in America, in favor of the survival of the US Nation.
The only question is how much bloodshed must occur to return America to a Democracy that favors the Nation (People) over the State (Elites). The Political Revolution of Trump is far better than a violent revolution which Democracy was invented to replace.
Would be better if economic Class Warfare would end in America, in favor of the survival of the US Nation.
1
On point on all fours, this article tells the story of the political exploitation of cultural wars to split apart opponent parties. In my voting life it began with Nixon's Southern Strategy and coddling of the "Moral Majority" to slice off pieces of the Democrats' uneasy coalition. It went on to the exploitation of religious fervor to build a culture war which continues to this day and age over gays, bathrooms and so much more. The unfolding of the American Parade would be fascinating if it were not so dangerous and so lacking in honesty and integrity.
16
One other thing to consider: only one of the outsider candidates for each party this year has hinted that he might make an independent run if not nominated. That outsider candidate isn't the Senator from Vermont. Still any questions why the party of the other one has come begrudgingly into the fold?
6
The Republican party has been having a nervous breakdown for a couple of decades now. An essential problem is they have pushed into office weak minded men and women who are fed a rotating, circular diet of propaganda from the right wing, Republican world by GOP controlled media and they believe what they hear and read. In earlier generations, pre-Reagan, they had politicians sophisticated enough to know when they were lying. This crowd doesn't.
The process of disintegration been a puzzlement to me. you too?) One explanation, emerging slowly, is they realize they are a dying demographic breed, that not only is the tide of history moving away from them, so are demographics and increased urbanization. Almost any trend you can mention flows away from Republicans.
Another explanation is that they have had to find more and more radical promises to make to the billionaire class. What do you promise to someone who already has everything? Over and over, the Republicans promise protection from the dirty, low income classes by guarding against tax increases that might fund future programs. They have, in short, run out of things to promise.
A true political party has to stand for something higher than crushing the govt. they were elected to serve. Being against everything it is merely a snit fit grown massive.
Post Trump, win or lose, they will likely go looking for a better Trump, one who has more refined political skills and some actual experience. The end.
Doug Terry
16
We are long past questioning if the Republican Party is wrecked. It's totalled...
The big question now is what/who has Trump unearthed and how will they respond when, God willing, he fails and loses mightily?
As the insanity and danger of his candidacy turns him into a national laughing stock (via the in-his-own-words non-stop advertising campaign(s)), aided by Bernie's swift recovery from his severe case of Potomac Fever, Trump could sink the whole party - nationally and locally - for a generation.
But, will this blind, rabid and angry mob of followers just disappear into the night?
The big question now is what/who has Trump unearthed and how will they respond when, God willing, he fails and loses mightily?
As the insanity and danger of his candidacy turns him into a national laughing stock (via the in-his-own-words non-stop advertising campaign(s)), aided by Bernie's swift recovery from his severe case of Potomac Fever, Trump could sink the whole party - nationally and locally - for a generation.
But, will this blind, rabid and angry mob of followers just disappear into the night?
14
Its good to have respected academics write pieces for the times, but ...
I just don't buy that the party that now controls both houses of congress and most governorships and state legislatures will unravel all because of Trump and the immigration issue.
Overall the GOP (think Paul Ryan) is closer on immigration to Dems than to Trump. And Republican operatives have for years acknowledged that they expect to have trouble winning in Presidential elections.
A blowhard who has never won any election (and who isn't the official Republican nominee yet) should never be compared to a great President like Teddy Roosevelt (a Governor of NY and Sec of the Navy before he became VP and then President). TR reshaped politics when he was hugely popular in America. Is Trump popular? Is he even a "leader" of the GOP?
I'm simply not buying that the GOP is about to fold up its tent over Trump. Its a minority party that enjoys a lot of success in our system and with our current constitutional structure. If the system and the structure don't change, the demise of a party shouldn't matter much.
The system is such that there will always be opportunities to game it with money and to mislead the public. The oil and defense industry lobbyists won't just go home.
At base, this is yet another example of how media focuses on the horserace. In this case the subject is a party rather than a candidate - in both cases the real issues and the potential impact on real people is avoided.
I just don't buy that the party that now controls both houses of congress and most governorships and state legislatures will unravel all because of Trump and the immigration issue.
Overall the GOP (think Paul Ryan) is closer on immigration to Dems than to Trump. And Republican operatives have for years acknowledged that they expect to have trouble winning in Presidential elections.
A blowhard who has never won any election (and who isn't the official Republican nominee yet) should never be compared to a great President like Teddy Roosevelt (a Governor of NY and Sec of the Navy before he became VP and then President). TR reshaped politics when he was hugely popular in America. Is Trump popular? Is he even a "leader" of the GOP?
I'm simply not buying that the GOP is about to fold up its tent over Trump. Its a minority party that enjoys a lot of success in our system and with our current constitutional structure. If the system and the structure don't change, the demise of a party shouldn't matter much.
The system is such that there will always be opportunities to game it with money and to mislead the public. The oil and defense industry lobbyists won't just go home.
At base, this is yet another example of how media focuses on the horserace. In this case the subject is a party rather than a candidate - in both cases the real issues and the potential impact on real people is avoided.
8
We can argue about how far along this process of dissolution is, and speculate about its future timeline, but its long-term direction and magnitude have been clear for several election cycles. It's true that the GOP has, thanks to dark money, court-packing, gerrymandering, voter suppression and off-year-election voter apathy, managed to offset its widespread losses in the popular vote. But again, the relentless march of changing demographics and cultural norms continues against them, with no turning point in sight. A lot has changed since 2010, with more to come in the balance of the decade. Once these trends have become manifest in the 2020 census, the GOP will face a grim reckoning. And if good-government reforms increasingly take redistricting out of the hands of partisans (of either party), the process will only accelerate.
13
We, the post WWII American generation, are the luckiest people to have ever walked the planet.
We should not go out leaving the impression that we got where we are by exercising our core conservative values of self service, obstructionism, recidivism, and tribalism.
We got here because our ancestors realized long ago that it was a good, albeit liberal, idea to share the banana's in order to preserve enough of a viable population to fend off the predators. We didn't allow our "conservative values" to interfere with rational, albeit abstract, ideas that improved the lot of others and ultimately moved civilization forward. A true conservative would get back on track and stick with the plan to progress..........even when control seems lost and uncertainty looms large.
We should not go out leaving the impression that we got where we are by exercising our core conservative values of self service, obstructionism, recidivism, and tribalism.
We got here because our ancestors realized long ago that it was a good, albeit liberal, idea to share the banana's in order to preserve enough of a viable population to fend off the predators. We didn't allow our "conservative values" to interfere with rational, albeit abstract, ideas that improved the lot of others and ultimately moved civilization forward. A true conservative would get back on track and stick with the plan to progress..........even when control seems lost and uncertainty looms large.
19
Generally, the GOP's problems are due in great part to this two-party system which forces each party to make certain compromises, hence it forces large population groups to either vote with reluctance for one candidate, or the not vote at all. So the problem facing the GOP is not just the GOP's.
Specifically, however, in this election, the problem the GOP is facing is one of decisions made in the recent past. McCain can say what he wants, his decision in 2008 to go with the Sarah Palin and the Rube Vote was what legitimized the birther-tin-foil forces, which includes all those people who have a vague feeling of frustration, who, like 13-year olds, just feel somehow constrained by anything and anyone asking them to become constructively involved. Hence the denial of man-made climate change.
Now the GOP would like the party to lockstep behind these forces. Whereas earlier, these forces used to lockstep behind the the mainstream GOP forces. Because there was no other place to go, really.
Specifically, however, in this election, the problem the GOP is facing is one of decisions made in the recent past. McCain can say what he wants, his decision in 2008 to go with the Sarah Palin and the Rube Vote was what legitimized the birther-tin-foil forces, which includes all those people who have a vague feeling of frustration, who, like 13-year olds, just feel somehow constrained by anything and anyone asking them to become constructively involved. Hence the denial of man-made climate change.
Now the GOP would like the party to lockstep behind these forces. Whereas earlier, these forces used to lockstep behind the the mainstream GOP forces. Because there was no other place to go, really.
17
It's always amusing to read left-wing fantasies when they are published in the New York Times. To make short work of this one, Mr. Wilentz has probably missed Trump's quick embrace of Reagan's positions on gun control and his decidedly Reaganesque list of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court and lower courts. From what I can see, that is just the beginning of his embrace of Reaganism. Trump is becoming a Republican because he understands that it is the party who will be bankrolling his campaign and will likely control the Congress when he is elected, the possibility of which is looking more likely each day.
Fantasies do not win elections, even when they are backed up by comically inept historical analysis. Democrats have the weakest candidate they've seen fit to nominate since McGovern in 72. If you are a Democrat, you should be concerned but not afraid, since these changes in the hearts and minds of the electorate are cyclical and never permanent.
This election is Trump's to lose and I wouldn't be surprised if he blows it. But he's showing he understands the process far more than was previously believed.
Fantasies do not win elections, even when they are backed up by comically inept historical analysis. Democrats have the weakest candidate they've seen fit to nominate since McGovern in 72. If you are a Democrat, you should be concerned but not afraid, since these changes in the hearts and minds of the electorate are cyclical and never permanent.
This election is Trump's to lose and I wouldn't be surprised if he blows it. But he's showing he understands the process far more than was previously believed.
8
If the GOP becomes unviable it will restructure rather than split into two. Think of it like real estate. The taller and more iconic the building, the less likely it is to be taken down. The Federalist and Whig parties were big in their day, but they were mere 3-story buildings with poor foundations compared to the skyscrapers the DNC and GOP are today. It's much easier to tear down and replace a 3-story building than a skyscraper.
The GOP will restructure to a more moderate platform out of necessity if its southern strategy continues to fail nationally and they lose the House and Senate by a substantial margin. They will then take from the moderate wing of the DNC to recoup their losses as they cut ties with the "crazies." There may be a viable third party, but it will only be strong in the South. You'll have a GOP and DNC dominate nationally with minor representation in federal government from this newly created southern party that does well in state and local races in the South and forces the DNC and GOP to court them in the Senate and House.
The GOP will restructure to a more moderate platform out of necessity if its southern strategy continues to fail nationally and they lose the House and Senate by a substantial margin. They will then take from the moderate wing of the DNC to recoup their losses as they cut ties with the "crazies." There may be a viable third party, but it will only be strong in the South. You'll have a GOP and DNC dominate nationally with minor representation in federal government from this newly created southern party that does well in state and local races in the South and forces the DNC and GOP to court them in the Senate and House.
5
1800, 1860, 1932 and 1980 were "change" elections in the sense outlined by Professor Wilentz. But I think it might be different this time. In my view Trump doesn't signify a realignment or reshuffling of politics, but rather the beginning of the dissolution of traditional politics. Trump represents the beginning of an end phase that more closely resembles the preludes to collapse of the Roman Republic or Weimar Germany. In 20 years we will no longer recognize the America of the history books, the America we grew up in.
27
The GOP isn't going to crack up. The institutional and economic forces holding it together are far too strong. It's already falling over itself to kiss Trump's ring. If he crashes and burns as is likely, they will just use it as an object lesson for the base to make sure they do as they are told in future. Finality is not the language of politics...Disraeli.
13
The tradition-modernity conflict is almost a built-in feature of a society that's negotiating its way to modernity and cultural advance. However, given the advanced development stage and a highly pluralistic socio-cultural fabric of America, such dichotomy between the tradition and modernity should have subsided much earlier in its history, but it was not to be so, as to be borne out by the current confusion built around the nativistic revival and economic anxieties. If this Trump-ian phenomenon results into the fissures in the Republican party, that doesn't matter much. What's more disturbing is the likely social implosion and cultural chaos such nativism is going to create in America with long term consequences for stability and cultural consensus in society.
14
The central contradiction that is tearing the Republicans apart remains unaddressed. Small government is incompatible with free enterprise, since large corporations can make more money by avoiding forms of competition (such as price wars) that benefit their customers and instead seek covert cooperation and a show of competition. Small government enables and allows oligarchy, which then gains control of the government. Small government is unable to stop big business from limiting individual freedom. The spectacle of competition overseen by an objective referee soon takes on the reality of a professional wrestling match.
Small government is also incompatible with the moral crusades of social conservatives (except where conservatives can impose their views on others by informal social and cultural means, as in the South or rural areas). And, of course, small government is incompatible with the American imperial ambition of maintaining a peace that benefits our interests.
So small government is incompatible with the other basic Republican values of free markets, enforced conventional morality, and being the most powerful country on earth. The temporary solution to this incompatibility is the Donald, for whom nothing is incompatible unless he allows it to be. A man who changes positions while denying any change does not have to worry about what is compatible.
Small government is also incompatible with the moral crusades of social conservatives (except where conservatives can impose their views on others by informal social and cultural means, as in the South or rural areas). And, of course, small government is incompatible with the American imperial ambition of maintaining a peace that benefits our interests.
So small government is incompatible with the other basic Republican values of free markets, enforced conventional morality, and being the most powerful country on earth. The temporary solution to this incompatibility is the Donald, for whom nothing is incompatible unless he allows it to be. A man who changes positions while denying any change does not have to worry about what is compatible.
42
The central contradiction is that elements of the Republican coalition simply do not share the same agenda.
3
Republicans even have their heads installed backwards. The Party is really nothing more than a cult of ignorance for fools.
8
Whichever way you look at it, the conservative neocon domination of the GOP has ended. The more the "establishment" Republicans decry Trump as not being conservative, the more I am willing to listen.
The nation needs a party that looks to give the public a square deal as contemplated by Teddy Roosevelt. Both the Republican and Democratic establishments are more interested in the "vested interest deal".
Republicans try to get people to vote against their economic interests with issues like gun ownership. The Democrats are no better. They try to get people to vote against their interests with issues like the need to elect the first woman President.
The nation needs a party that looks to give the public a square deal as contemplated by Teddy Roosevelt. Both the Republican and Democratic establishments are more interested in the "vested interest deal".
Republicans try to get people to vote against their economic interests with issues like gun ownership. The Democrats are no better. They try to get people to vote against their interests with issues like the need to elect the first woman President.
9
Interesting notion, that there's a need to elect a woman president. I don't feel that at all.
I feel a need to vote in a Democrat, so that the Supreme Court becomes left leaning. Everything else is not important.
I feel a need to vote in a Democrat, so that the Supreme Court becomes left leaning. Everything else is not important.
17
I think the GOP is in trouble. I can support small government but I can not support a return to a white, male, wealthy, protestant ruling class. That is what Trump and the party really want and that is what his base is crazy for.
8
A coalition made up of a collection of self-serving cults rooted in hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry is pretty much bound to turn on itself sooner or later.
Delusion is the lesser part of human.
Delusion is the lesser part of human.
3
Vote for Gary Johnson then.
1
Grimly amusing of course, for lack of a better word, are the Irish and German Catholics whose ancestors were the victims of the 1850s No Nothings, who are now Trumpistas.
Why is it that Jews seem to be so much better at maintaining a coherent cultural memory about how their ancestors were treated, and, as indicated by the well known liberalness of many Jews, an empathetic contemporary political response to victims of discrimination?
Maybe it's as simple as being a function of the length of time that one's ancestors were crapped upon, i.e., indefinite discrimination vs assimilation into the "establishment" (honorary WASP status?) after a generation or two?
Why is it that Jews seem to be so much better at maintaining a coherent cultural memory about how their ancestors were treated, and, as indicated by the well known liberalness of many Jews, an empathetic contemporary political response to victims of discrimination?
Maybe it's as simple as being a function of the length of time that one's ancestors were crapped upon, i.e., indefinite discrimination vs assimilation into the "establishment" (honorary WASP status?) after a generation or two?
1
So the only thing the Republican Party can claim in their entire existence is ending slavery over 200 yrs ago. And they've been trying to get it back ever since.
19
The Republicans turned the US into the world's major economic, industrial, and financial power from 1865-1930. Not a mean achievement.
As a side note, the US abolished slavery only 153 years ago, 30 years later, incidentally, than the British Empire. And the Civil Rights Act would never have passed without Republican support led by Everett Dirksen, then Senate Minority Leader.
As a side note, the US abolished slavery only 153 years ago, 30 years later, incidentally, than the British Empire. And the Civil Rights Act would never have passed without Republican support led by Everett Dirksen, then Senate Minority Leader.
2
Actually that was about 151 years ago now and in its first several decades there were many progressives in the Republican Party, at least through the early 1900s, but by the 1920s the Republicans had become predominantly the party for the support of the wealthy and, by the early '70s, of the bigots and religious ignoramuses who had previously mostly been Democrats, no longer comfortable in a party that taken up the cause of pushing for civil rights.
3
The Libertarian Party.....might become the spoiler for Trump....
so....that the rumor is that billiionaires against Trump are supporting
Libertarians....
so....that the rumor is that billiionaires against Trump are supporting
Libertarians....
7
Gary Johnson is a legitimate candidate but I doubt the Libertarian Party will even be on the ballot in many states. So far they only have ballot access in 32 states.
1
I think we need to get out of party politics and realize that we are not Democrats nor Republicans but Americans. Party politics is what is destroying us.
9
There are no honest negotiators public policy at all in the US. It is all just a stupid tug of war.
1
This isn't the 1800s. The parties in this day and age are brands, too valuable to abandon.
5
The best thing for American politics would be the implosion of the GOP, and a new beginning. We need a viable second party, forget a third. Without a loyal opposition, we are deprived of a different viewpoint, a dialog from which the country benefits. Sanity and balance need to be restored, Donald and his know-nothing's are not the ones to do that.
23
We need real political parties, not these two state-issue sham parties for babies.
1
For Heaven's Sake.
Trump won't even be a footnote in 15 years.
The Republican Party will continue as long as ignorance is present in the electorate.
The boys that run (benefit from) the Republican Party aren't going anywhere. Trump is a flash in the pan......but make no mistake.....this election year, Trump is a FLASH in the pan.
Trump won't even be a footnote in 15 years.
The Republican Party will continue as long as ignorance is present in the electorate.
The boys that run (benefit from) the Republican Party aren't going anywhere. Trump is a flash in the pan......but make no mistake.....this election year, Trump is a FLASH in the pan.
5
Trump won't even be a footnote in 15 years.
Ummnn... his TV show may enjoy syndication!
Ummnn... his TV show may enjoy syndication!
Whether the GOP breaks up or not, the people composing that party will continue their racist, xenophobic, antiwoman way of thinking. It is not the organization that creates this, but individuals who are stuck in Jim Crow attitudes.
It's not surprising that they would have trouble staying together as their basic mistrust would tend to drive them apart. But I do not expect that the Donald will be their downfall. In fact his basic attitudes worship of big money, mistrust of anyone they consider different, disrespect for women and the use of force and guns in any situation are right up the GOP line.
The GOP releases a huge sigh of relief as Trump parrots their positions and because he needs their money to run he will stay in their pocket and as the narcissist he is he will cow tow to their position after the election as well because he has no moral positions to fall back upon only his desire for power . And that is what the GOP is all about.
It's not surprising that they would have trouble staying together as their basic mistrust would tend to drive them apart. But I do not expect that the Donald will be their downfall. In fact his basic attitudes worship of big money, mistrust of anyone they consider different, disrespect for women and the use of force and guns in any situation are right up the GOP line.
The GOP releases a huge sigh of relief as Trump parrots their positions and because he needs their money to run he will stay in their pocket and as the narcissist he is he will cow tow to their position after the election as well because he has no moral positions to fall back upon only his desire for power . And that is what the GOP is all about.
29
Right.
In addition to the rascists, nativists and misogynists I suspect there is another category of "people" who won't simply just go away - and those are the "people" known as corporations. And people like Tom Donahue of the Chamber of Commerce will still go on TV, as he did this week, to (in the words of its own website) "mobilize support of pro-business candidates" while claiming that government regulation is preventing job creation while corporations enjoy record profits, close US plants, outsource jobs and deny responsibility for the environmental catastrophes they are causing.
In addition to the rascists, nativists and misogynists I suspect there is another category of "people" who won't simply just go away - and those are the "people" known as corporations. And people like Tom Donahue of the Chamber of Commerce will still go on TV, as he did this week, to (in the words of its own website) "mobilize support of pro-business candidates" while claiming that government regulation is preventing job creation while corporations enjoy record profits, close US plants, outsource jobs and deny responsibility for the environmental catastrophes they are causing.
12
only his desire for power?
Funny! That's how I feel about Hillary.
4
Trump's cleaning out the Republican party; he is not breaking it up. Ending the Bush Dynasty, discarding the shadow of Romney, sending Cruz back to the senate is a major facelift for the Republican party that is seen by Republican's as major long overdue cleanup not breakup. Trump could well be lesser of the two evils in the national elections. Clearly, Sanders running as an independent would give independents more choices between those that will end up as the Republican and Democratic nominees.
3
The Republicans have no shame or real morals. The party is run by greed, racism and selfishness. They're already finding ways to put lipstick on Trump. Shortly, all the pretend GOP outrage, like a mirage in the desert, will wisp away, and the real Republicans will goose step in line behind El Trumpo. It's already happening. For those with weak stomachs, have your barf bags ready, this will be a rough ride into the land of pure stupidity.
16
This is a clear and insightful precis of the current, not punditry! Thanks
5
Trump must work then not only to gain the Presidency, but to save the Republican Party since he has placed his own power and ego in place of the principles that allegedly held the GOP together.
Should Mr. Trump lose, then it is possible that a complete destruction and disintegration of the Republican Party is in the cards, because in its final hours, it succumbed to Trumpism, a value system of vapidness and narcissism.
Should Mr. Trump lose, then it is possible that a complete destruction and disintegration of the Republican Party is in the cards, because in its final hours, it succumbed to Trumpism, a value system of vapidness and narcissism.
8
However, not a word regarding the 'cracks' within the old guard Democratic party? I would think you would attempt some appearance of neutrality and write about the other side of the coin. The American people have had just about their fill of machine politics from both parties.
4
The Democratic party is just as likely to split apart as the Republicans. In fact, I would contend it has more risk of falling apart than the Republican party. There are a number of reasons I believe this is true. First, the government union led pension problem is going to cut services for some of the key Democratic constituents; especially in the cities. so the unions and the people that benefit from government services are eventually going to get pitted against one another, unless there are massive tax increases to cover the pension shortfalls. Good luck with that. People will simply move rather than paying massive taxes.
Second, the digital economy will drive Democratic constituents apart. The classic union backed democrats hate Uber and Airbnb. But most democrats (especially the young) like the digital economy. Eventually they are going to go after one another.
Third, at some point even Democrat mom's and dad's won't want their 14 year old daughter to have to share a bathroom with a man.
This isn't going to end well for Democrats. My hope is that both the Democratic party and the Republican party go the way of the Dodo bird.
Second, the digital economy will drive Democratic constituents apart. The classic union backed democrats hate Uber and Airbnb. But most democrats (especially the young) like the digital economy. Eventually they are going to go after one another.
Third, at some point even Democrat mom's and dad's won't want their 14 year old daughter to have to share a bathroom with a man.
This isn't going to end well for Democrats. My hope is that both the Democratic party and the Republican party go the way of the Dodo bird.
3
All the complaints about restrooms are coming from Republicans, not Democrats.
2
I thought that this piece was going to mention times that major American political parties have (or have nearly) broken up, but none of the 20th century examples Wilentz cites (including the TR presidency, the Great Depression and FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan) comes close to that. Interestingly, Wilentz doesn't mention one time in the 20th century when there was a true challenge to the Republican Party: TR's Progressive (Bull Moose) Party, which did better in the 1912 presidential election than the Republicans. I think that that would have been much better example to cite.
5
The party is not dismantling, its forcefully realigning to its new reality and identity.
2
The Alien and Sedition Acts and Jeffersonian victory of 1800 may have been crippling injuries to the Federalist Party, but (perhaps like the current G.O.P) the final mortal wound was primarily self inflicted.
The Federalists, being the party of the moneyed classes and Northern commercial (trading and shipping) interests, were virulently opposed to fighting England in the War of 1812 and to the Embargo Acts that preceded US entry int the Napoleonic Wars. (Basically, their trade and immediate profit interests were being strangled.)
When it was leaked that Federalist leaders of New England states had discussed seceding from the Union (almost 40 years before Southern states actually did), and that Massachusetts had attempted to enter into separate treaty negotiations with Great Britain, the party was discredited with large numbers of elites and "rank and file" disavowing any association.
After a brief "Era of Good Feelings" with no official opposition to the Jeffersonians, the commercial and banking interests, mostly found in larger port cities and New England, united as the National Republicans and (because of a three way race and a "Corrupt Bargain") elected John Quincy Adams for a single term during which Adams was thwarted and frustrated before Andrew Jackson (a Trumper-esque) populist swept him out of office in a rout.
The Whigs were a coalition of National Republicans and Democrats alienated by "King Andrew", but they soon split over the slave issue.
The Federalists, being the party of the moneyed classes and Northern commercial (trading and shipping) interests, were virulently opposed to fighting England in the War of 1812 and to the Embargo Acts that preceded US entry int the Napoleonic Wars. (Basically, their trade and immediate profit interests were being strangled.)
When it was leaked that Federalist leaders of New England states had discussed seceding from the Union (almost 40 years before Southern states actually did), and that Massachusetts had attempted to enter into separate treaty negotiations with Great Britain, the party was discredited with large numbers of elites and "rank and file" disavowing any association.
After a brief "Era of Good Feelings" with no official opposition to the Jeffersonians, the commercial and banking interests, mostly found in larger port cities and New England, united as the National Republicans and (because of a three way race and a "Corrupt Bargain") elected John Quincy Adams for a single term during which Adams was thwarted and frustrated before Andrew Jackson (a Trumper-esque) populist swept him out of office in a rout.
The Whigs were a coalition of National Republicans and Democrats alienated by "King Andrew", but they soon split over the slave issue.
6
>>>>
"But what if the Republicans are no longer a viable national party?" (SW)
Really? We're talking about America here, yes?
The GOP isn't going anywhere. It controls most of the Fed, State & Local gov't apparatus. It may change its name or skin, but its essence will always be the same false ideological (everyman for himself) con job with you playing the central role as the mark.
People that believe that the GOP is done for absolutely prove they cannot ween themselves from suckling on the twin breasts of illusion and optimism. The regressive "ontological fallacy", as Rust Cohle says, "of expecting a light at the end of the tunnel, well, that's what the preacher sells, same as a shrink. See, the preacher, he encourages your capacity for illusion. Then he tells you it's a [ ] virtue. Always a buck to be had doing that, and it's such a desperate sense of entitlement, isn't it?"
Ernest Becker wrote, “Why are groups so blind and stupid?—men have always asked. Because they demand illusions, answered Freud, they 'constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.' And we know why. The real world is simply too terrible to admit; it tells man that he is a small, trembling animal who will decay and die. Illusion changes all this, makes man seem important, vital to the universe, immortal in some way.”
Postmodern man has just carried this capacity for illusion beyond any usefulness. Instead of making him healthy, it entraps & dooms him in his own generated folly.
"But what if the Republicans are no longer a viable national party?" (SW)
Really? We're talking about America here, yes?
The GOP isn't going anywhere. It controls most of the Fed, State & Local gov't apparatus. It may change its name or skin, but its essence will always be the same false ideological (everyman for himself) con job with you playing the central role as the mark.
People that believe that the GOP is done for absolutely prove they cannot ween themselves from suckling on the twin breasts of illusion and optimism. The regressive "ontological fallacy", as Rust Cohle says, "of expecting a light at the end of the tunnel, well, that's what the preacher sells, same as a shrink. See, the preacher, he encourages your capacity for illusion. Then he tells you it's a [ ] virtue. Always a buck to be had doing that, and it's such a desperate sense of entitlement, isn't it?"
Ernest Becker wrote, “Why are groups so blind and stupid?—men have always asked. Because they demand illusions, answered Freud, they 'constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.' And we know why. The real world is simply too terrible to admit; it tells man that he is a small, trembling animal who will decay and die. Illusion changes all this, makes man seem important, vital to the universe, immortal in some way.”
Postmodern man has just carried this capacity for illusion beyond any usefulness. Instead of making him healthy, it entraps & dooms him in his own generated folly.
6
It would be interesting for someone to collect similar sentiments expressed in 1800 and 1860.
1
Very much a theme on Game of Thrones.
Humpty Trumpty sat on a Wall,
Humpty Trumpty had a great fall,
And all the GOP forces
And all the GOP men
Couldn't put their Party together again.
Humpty Trumpty had a great fall,
And all the GOP forces
And all the GOP men
Couldn't put their Party together again.
11
This would make a great mini-series.
1
In sum, conservatism is a failed ideology regardless of decade.
12
What passes for "conservatism" in the US is just a race to burn up the planet. It is a dyslexo-conservatism that conserves nothing.
1
This is the usual,out of touch with the mood of the country opinion I've come to expect in the NYT. Trump has awakened an impotent fat Republican Party that will eagerly follow him this November to victory. He will call Hillary out on matters that Romney would choke on.(Remember the Benghazi choke in the second debate?) The Democrats meanwhile are being torn apart.A third party is much more likely to come from that direction.What an election! I hope the NYT will try to be more objective going forward.If this great country survived 8 years of Obama it can certainly survive the same with Trump.
2
Trump is a bombastic fool with a ten year old's vocabulary. He is far below President Obama's level.
1
On one side of the NYTimes you speak of the GOP breaking up because of Trump, on the other side we see that a majority og the GOP are calling for backing him. Which is it?
Another missing mention: Perot grabbing enough votes to hand WJC the White House. This represents the early rumblings of the Republican blue collar - white collar split that's been laid bare this year.
3
The two party system has always had the same two parties: the Hamiltonian (Federalist, Whig, Republican) and the Jeffersonian (Democratic Republican, Democratic). The Hamiltonians were more prone to "rebranding" prior to the Civil War, but in fact had as much (or little) continuity as the Jeffersonians. Both parties periodically "collapse" as their coalitions are broken up by the tides of history, only to be reconstituted in the form of some new colatiion (the Clinton-Obama coalition differs as much from FDR's as the Nixon-Reagan coalition did from earlier Republican ones).
Neither party is doing a good job of developing sensible solutions to the country's problems. The reason for past success may be that the biggest problems were perceived as external threats. Today's problem are largely self-made. We can't seem to come to terms with the consequences of our own actions as a great power since 1945.
Neither party is doing a good job of developing sensible solutions to the country's problems. The reason for past success may be that the biggest problems were perceived as external threats. Today's problem are largely self-made. We can't seem to come to terms with the consequences of our own actions as a great power since 1945.
Nativism and know-nothingism are not new to the Republican party.
In 1980, after an election campaign dominated by the Iranian hostage crisis. his promise to implement supply-side economics, (characterized as voodoo economics by hi running mate), and the rise of the know-nothings Ronald Reagan was elected. Saint Ronald proceeded to sky-rocket the national debt, emasculate environmental regulations, demonize "welfare queens", call catsup a vegetable and destroy labor unions.
In 2000 George W. Bush was appointed president. He lied us into a war in Iraq, gave massive tax cuts to his wealthy friends, converted a budget surplus into a record deficit and drove the country into the Great Recession.
In 2016 Donald Trump is running for president.
As Marx said, history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.
In 1980, after an election campaign dominated by the Iranian hostage crisis. his promise to implement supply-side economics, (characterized as voodoo economics by hi running mate), and the rise of the know-nothings Ronald Reagan was elected. Saint Ronald proceeded to sky-rocket the national debt, emasculate environmental regulations, demonize "welfare queens", call catsup a vegetable and destroy labor unions.
In 2000 George W. Bush was appointed president. He lied us into a war in Iraq, gave massive tax cuts to his wealthy friends, converted a budget surplus into a record deficit and drove the country into the Great Recession.
In 2016 Donald Trump is running for president.
As Marx said, history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.
11
The Iran-Contra affair demonstrated that treason with foreign powers is just another chapter in the Republican Party playbook.
2
Make America great again? For who? That is the question! This is truly a historic election... neither candidate has set most of us on fire. The worst election in my memory. And I'm 63.
5
Indeed: great for whom? As great as it was for draft-age Americans during the Vietnam debacle? As great as it was for black Americans struggling for civil rights and voting rights in the 60s? As great as it was for black children in segregated schools in the 50s? As great as it was for journalists/academics/politicians who were on McCarthy's lists in the postwar? As great as it was for minorities who fought for America in WWII, only to come home to a Jim Crow America that ostracized and interned them and their families? As great as it was for immigrants and minorities terrorized by the Klan and their enablers in government in the early 20th century? As great as it was for women, as they struggled for a century for simple suffrage? As great as it was for "free" blacks during Reconstruction? Or as really, hugely, excellently great as it was for antebellum blacks in chains? So much greatness to contemplate....
6
Ronald Reagan would "recognize" and be quite comfortable with Trump's Republican party. Reagan pointedly kicked off his 1980 campaign for the presidency in Philadelphia, Mississippi where only 16 years earlier three Civil Rights activists had been brutally murdered by the local police. He consulted astrologers when faced with major decisions and he believed that California's smog and air pollution problems were caused by trees. No doubt about it, Professor Wilentz, the old Gipper would feel right at home with the "Trumpists."
7
Ironic that Republican efforts to save party unity long-term will only succeed if Trump fails, and fails big.
1
The United States will survive if Donald Trump is elected --- probably. But the really scary thing about Trump would be his finger on the nuclear button. As he himself would be quick to remind you, Trump is not stupid, so it is unlikely he would get us embroiled in a catastrophic war, but given his comments so far one cannot have total confidence in his sense of restraint. Goldwater evoked the same fears in 1964. Fortunately, we never got a chance to find out if Goldwater would have used nukes in Vietnam. And today I'd rather not have to worry about whether Trump would use nukes in the Middle East. Let's just skip the drama and elect Hillary.
9
The only president who actually pushed the button was Truman, a Democrat.
It appears that Trump gets on well with Putin so who exactly is he going to have the world war with?
It is Hillary who said about Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died" and hundreds of thousands died in Gaddafi's wake.
And she has suggested a "no fly" zone over Syria which is a Russian ally.
So SHE is the one I fear.
True, there is the danger of Trump using tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS.
That would be dangerous but probably not a world war.
It appears that Trump gets on well with Putin so who exactly is he going to have the world war with?
It is Hillary who said about Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died" and hundreds of thousands died in Gaddafi's wake.
And she has suggested a "no fly" zone over Syria which is a Russian ally.
So SHE is the one I fear.
True, there is the danger of Trump using tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS.
That would be dangerous but probably not a world war.
5
Republican candidates Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham supported a no-fly zone over Syria, and John Kasich clarified that his support was for one that would be implemented without any Russian support.
The GOP opposes the idea of placing any restriction on the ability of known terrorists (who are banned from flying in the US) to purchase guns and other weapons in the US. Now, isn't that a little more scary?
The GOP opposes the idea of placing any restriction on the ability of known terrorists (who are banned from flying in the US) to purchase guns and other weapons in the US. Now, isn't that a little more scary?
1
Let's see.
The Republicans (the party that's about to break up) will be selecting Trump as its nominee.
The Democrats (the party that's held up as the gold standard for unity) continues to lurch forward, careening from one primary to the other, with Hillary Clinton winning here and Bernie Sanders winning there.
This kind of "analysis" leaves one wondering which party needs analyzing.
The Republicans (the party that's about to break up) will be selecting Trump as its nominee.
The Democrats (the party that's held up as the gold standard for unity) continues to lurch forward, careening from one primary to the other, with Hillary Clinton winning here and Bernie Sanders winning there.
This kind of "analysis" leaves one wondering which party needs analyzing.
5
It'd be nice to have a fuller, more detailed treatment of past breakups. Instead of the anticipated rich historical article, this focused on modern politics for the bulk of it--and NOT on party disintegration and new ones emerging.
1
Republicans won't break apart over immigration. It will be over the realization that they stand for nothing real. Trump just shows how little facts or experience matter in the Republican party. If the party stood for anything, it would have said that he could not run as a Republican when he first stepped in. But is Ted Cruz a Republican? Perhaps there should be a separate party for people who want to make up facts and propose policy without evidence of that policy working.
13
The Republican Party is more a religious cult than a political party.
2
Madame La Bouff predicts that Trump will lose to Clinton by a wide margin in November. Latinos, Blacks, Muslims, women and millennials will lead the charge. The Republicans will lose the Senate, but hold on to the House by just a handful of seats. Republicans at the state and local level will pick themselves up, dust themselves off and try to rebuild. But we've heard that before, haven't we? It all sort of reminds me of Goldwater v. Johnson in 1964.
5
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated...
9
This piece illustrates yet again the dangers of publishing schedules in a world that changes so rapidly. Just as resistance to Trump among Republicans disintegrates, just as a poll appears making clear that Republicans all over America want the party elders to unify behind him, just as Trump himself is unifying the diverse elements that gather under a Republican Big Tent … we have an opinion piece whose argument offers the premise that Trump could break up the G.O.P.
It’s also amusing to see a pundit speculating about whether the Republican Party even remains viable in America, when we hold 34 governorships, about two-thirds of statehouse chambers and an undivided Republican Congress. One might more rationally ponder the viability of the Democratic Party in America – not by the noise it makes but by the elected representatives it can’t manage to seat.
But the whole piece is a romp of historical revisionism. Reagan didn’t fail: he succeeded at seeding a new political order in America, one that had its expression in New Gingrich’s takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994; the election of George W. Bush over men enough Americans believed were the lesser of two evils that they elected then re-elected him; and in the current reality so unworthy of mention by Democrats, which sees them less and less influential at city, county, state and federal levels.
Mr. Wilentz indulges in a sad but entertaining daydream of a fractured Republican Party, Trump or no Trump.
It’s also amusing to see a pundit speculating about whether the Republican Party even remains viable in America, when we hold 34 governorships, about two-thirds of statehouse chambers and an undivided Republican Congress. One might more rationally ponder the viability of the Democratic Party in America – not by the noise it makes but by the elected representatives it can’t manage to seat.
But the whole piece is a romp of historical revisionism. Reagan didn’t fail: he succeeded at seeding a new political order in America, one that had its expression in New Gingrich’s takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994; the election of George W. Bush over men enough Americans believed were the lesser of two evils that they elected then re-elected him; and in the current reality so unworthy of mention by Democrats, which sees them less and less influential at city, county, state and federal levels.
Mr. Wilentz indulges in a sad but entertaining daydream of a fractured Republican Party, Trump or no Trump.
9
It is true that the "never Trump" crowd showed themselves to have no spine. As for the Republican control at the state level some of it is due to lazy Democrats who can't be bothered to vote in off year elections. Then again there is the gerry- mandering and voter suppression laws designed to keep Republicans in power when their ideas won't.
1
I don't know if the factionalism within the Republican Party will cause it to implode or not & agree that rumors of its demise are premature. That being said the idea that republicans dominate state government because of popular support is wildly exaggerated. If state wide majority vote wasn't diluted by gerrymandered districts and rural areas with far to much influence in relation to their population there would be far fewer republicans in power in many states. Here in Michigan we regularly vote majority democrat & have two democratic senators yet the republicans control state government. If you couldn't cheat you often wouldn't win.
5
"Mr. Wilentz indulges in a sad but entertaining daydream of a fractured Republican Party, Trump or no Trump."
That's an interesting take, but that's not how I understood the column. Wilentz is a history professor, which seemed pretty obvious to me in his use of more than two centuries of historical political data, but I don't see any conclusion in his piece that indicates the GOP faces impending dissolution as a political entity.
Yes, his final paragraph claims that the issues that Mr. Trump focuses on were also present in the rare instances where a political party collapsed in the past, but as we both should know, correlation does not equal causation.
Personally, even though you would probably consider me significantly left-wing, an outspoken liberal for decades, I do not want the Republican Party to collapse and fragment. I would much rather see some sort of underlying change in the GOP that recognizes the fundamental changes happening in society, both in America and around the world, and a new willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with those on the left.
A one party system would be extremely dangerous to our country, even if that party happened to be the Democrats. No party has a monopoly on common sense, nor on good ideas, and I trust some of my fellow Democrats about as far as I can throw a truck.
That's an interesting take, but that's not how I understood the column. Wilentz is a history professor, which seemed pretty obvious to me in his use of more than two centuries of historical political data, but I don't see any conclusion in his piece that indicates the GOP faces impending dissolution as a political entity.
Yes, his final paragraph claims that the issues that Mr. Trump focuses on were also present in the rare instances where a political party collapsed in the past, but as we both should know, correlation does not equal causation.
Personally, even though you would probably consider me significantly left-wing, an outspoken liberal for decades, I do not want the Republican Party to collapse and fragment. I would much rather see some sort of underlying change in the GOP that recognizes the fundamental changes happening in society, both in America and around the world, and a new willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with those on the left.
A one party system would be extremely dangerous to our country, even if that party happened to be the Democrats. No party has a monopoly on common sense, nor on good ideas, and I trust some of my fellow Democrats about as far as I can throw a truck.
The electorate isnt less educated than in the past, but they are more misinformed. Faux news sites fill social media with false news stories that snare those whose attention span has been shortened to mere seconds with glaring headlines designed to capture the attention and engender electronic sharing. Few of the people who retweet or share these stories even bother to read them. The headline just corresponds with their preconceived ideas and they absorb it as though it were truth. It becomes apart of the political discourse no matter how preposterous and it adds to the overwhelming sense of doom that pervades our society.
How else could people ignore the economic successes of the past eight years, the improvements brought by Obamacare, the Presidents efforts to curb Wall Street and do something about the income gap in this country, and the fact that we are on the verge of completing eight scandal free years under the leadership of a man who is the epitome of the phrase the "dignity of the office."
How else can you explain so many people's willingness to support a man with no experience, no fixed set of moral principles, no class, a willingness to spread hatred and fear for his own political purposes, and a propensity for saying one thing one day and then the complete opposite a few weeks later?
Support for Trump is a byproduct of misinformation, not stupidity.
How else could people ignore the economic successes of the past eight years, the improvements brought by Obamacare, the Presidents efforts to curb Wall Street and do something about the income gap in this country, and the fact that we are on the verge of completing eight scandal free years under the leadership of a man who is the epitome of the phrase the "dignity of the office."
How else can you explain so many people's willingness to support a man with no experience, no fixed set of moral principles, no class, a willingness to spread hatred and fear for his own political purposes, and a propensity for saying one thing one day and then the complete opposite a few weeks later?
Support for Trump is a byproduct of misinformation, not stupidity.
124
I have to disagree. People who reject incontrovertible facts out hand and base their political views on catchphrases, tweets and their own prejudices aren't just "misinformed." They're stupid.
5
For reform or replacement of the Republican party to come instead of some sort of Trump-fascism the party has to lose the 2016 Presidential race.
Real change is needed but losing in 2008 and 2012 was not enough to bring it about. Deciding to marry the Tea Party in 2010 had short term benefits but was otherwise suicidal. The autopsy after the 2012 loss was superficial, trying to improve the branding of the party, especially with minorities, rather than the brand itself.
Republicans should swallow their distaste and vote Democratic this year, to deny Trump and to give their party a chance for renewal.
Real change is needed but losing in 2008 and 2012 was not enough to bring it about. Deciding to marry the Tea Party in 2010 had short term benefits but was otherwise suicidal. The autopsy after the 2012 loss was superficial, trying to improve the branding of the party, especially with minorities, rather than the brand itself.
Republicans should swallow their distaste and vote Democratic this year, to deny Trump and to give their party a chance for renewal.
23
The Republicans have been a fraud since the beginning of the Reagan era, actually from the inauguration of Nixon's Southern Strategy. By playing on fears, they managed to convince desperate and ill- or uninformed working class whites that they were acting in their interests while really doing nothing more than funneling increased wealth to plutocrats through the false promise of trickle down economics. It's taken several decades, but the phony promise has now become evident to all and the Republicans are getting the comeuppance they've long deserved. The Republicans broke the party. Now Trump owns it.
60
One glaring gap in this analysis that explains very much about the current 'mindset' of the average Republican of today:
The Democrats loss of the 'solid south' 50 years ago, closely followed by the Nixon / Atwater 'southern strategy'.
Or as it's also known:
Democrats: 'These racist ideas are trash and don't hold true to what American ideals should be!'
Republicans: 'Oh, we'll gladly take that trash off your hands, President Johnson!'.
The Democrats loss of the 'solid south' 50 years ago, closely followed by the Nixon / Atwater 'southern strategy'.
Or as it's also known:
Democrats: 'These racist ideas are trash and don't hold true to what American ideals should be!'
Republicans: 'Oh, we'll gladly take that trash off your hands, President Johnson!'.
23
...and that, in other ways, today's Democrats are comparable to what moderate Republicans were several decades ago - when, for example, Howard Baker pushed the Clean Water Act through to passage over Nixon's veto.
1
Sean,
You refer to previous major party crack-ups, but since the founding of the Republican Party in 1854, there was only one actual split, the election of 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket. This resulted in election of Woodrow Wilson. The Party then rapidly reassembled.
Whether Donald Trump wins or loses the 2016 election, there is a good chance that the Republican Party will split into two factions: a traditional businessperson's party favoring low taxes, minimal regulation, free trade and an aggressive foreign policy; and a conservative populist party favoring immigration restrictions, high tariffs, xenophobia, and a neo-isolationist foreign policy.
You refer to previous major party crack-ups, but since the founding of the Republican Party in 1854, there was only one actual split, the election of 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket. This resulted in election of Woodrow Wilson. The Party then rapidly reassembled.
Whether Donald Trump wins or loses the 2016 election, there is a good chance that the Republican Party will split into two factions: a traditional businessperson's party favoring low taxes, minimal regulation, free trade and an aggressive foreign policy; and a conservative populist party favoring immigration restrictions, high tariffs, xenophobia, and a neo-isolationist foreign policy.
14
The Republican party may break up, but it's various parts are bound to come together again, whatever the new party's name may finally be. That's a consequence of America's voting sytem (ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law), and as long as this doesn't change the USA eventually will always have a two party system. This is by the way also the reason why so many different groups make up the Republican party in the first place, and why two candidates with quite different agendas, like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have to try to run on the same party platform.
10
In the long run, we will probably retain a two-party system, but in the short run, there may be an unstable period when a third party forms and then unites with disaffected members of the Democratic and Republican parties. For example, I can envisage a scenario in which the socially liberal but fiscally conservative faction of the Republican Party unites with the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. it might be headed up by the multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg. it would face a conservative, populist, xenophobic, neo-isolationist faction of the Republican Party.
It's unlikely that any Republican break-up will happen. Most of the Republican leaders who were excoriating Trump a few weeks ago are falling in line, with the PACs in hot pursuit (or is it the other way round?). Anyone but a Democrat and especially anyone but Hillary, is their thinking. So what if it destroys our country as we know wit and makes us an international punch line? The bad news is that people respond favorably to bullies, as long as its "their" bully.
21
I remember clearly the editorial cartoons heralding the death of the Republican party after the defeat of Barry Goldwater by LBJ in 1964. The usual image was an elephant in various states of decay or grievous injury. Eight years later they won the White House by the largest popular vote margin in US history (still standing.)
You aren't even waiting to see if Trump loses. People had better get it together to see that this happens, not because he's the Republican, but because he's - well, Trump.
You aren't even waiting to see if Trump loses. People had better get it together to see that this happens, not because he's the Republican, but because he's - well, Trump.
9
I suggest you check the opinions of historians about Nixon. You will find that, despite his reprehensible record on civil liberties, he is viewed as the last truly LIBERAL president, much more so than Clinton or Obama. How could it be otherwise, when he (1) imposed wage and price controls; (2) ended the convertibility of US currency (Federal Reserve notes) into gold at $35/ounce and allowed the value of gold to float; and (3) began the process of Chinese reconciliation and the establishment of diplomatic relations after being a leader of the "who lost China?" lobby and a member of HUAC? The loss by Goldwater wasn't about his Republicanism it was about his conservatism, and it thereafter went into hibernation for 16 years--until Reagan.
1
Tell more of the story if you're going to tell one. Nixon was a corporate-oriented politician as all "conservatives" of the last century have been. Examples abound but one merely has to look at his Supreme Court nominations and his veto of the Clean Water Act, which was overriden by both houses of congress. Or his abuse of federal power, using federal agencies and law enforcement to spy on and to attempt to expunge or ridicule those who protested his agenda. He tried to put a rascist on the supreme court, when that didn't work he settled for the head lawyer for the corporate lobby in washington. And given his longtime political alliance with Pepsi president Don Kendall, he though it might be good to make a little trip to China on Pepsi's behalf....
Nixon even backed a guaranteed minimum income or "negative income tax".
The GOP has been hijacked long before Mr Trump made his opportunistic debut.
First, it was corrupted by the social extremists and then by the me-me-me extremists, then they joined forces by their sheer contempt of having an African-American to be their president. Evidently, it is easier to mix extremisms than to find middle ground and seek compromises. Even the late Sen Barry Goldwater Jr. would have been seen as an infidel, let alone Nixon, Ford or Reagan.
It may be easier for the Nixonites, Fordians and Reaganites to join together to form a Real Republican Party. Can RRP overcome the Tea Partier GOP, time will tell
First, it was corrupted by the social extremists and then by the me-me-me extremists, then they joined forces by their sheer contempt of having an African-American to be their president. Evidently, it is easier to mix extremisms than to find middle ground and seek compromises. Even the late Sen Barry Goldwater Jr. would have been seen as an infidel, let alone Nixon, Ford or Reagan.
It may be easier for the Nixonites, Fordians and Reaganites to join together to form a Real Republican Party. Can RRP overcome the Tea Partier GOP, time will tell
7
Wow. Sweeping, impressive analysis. A bit of a gloss over the (all important) Clinton years, but very useful. I'm convinced: "The times, they are a'changin'." if it were a kumbaya moment for the Dems., I might feel some hope for things American. As it is, entertainment reigns supreme. College fresh(persons) learned nothing in high school, and no one else is doing much learning either. Maybe we are a more perfect back-drop to a Trump presidency than anyone realizes. Keep an eye on this: http://pollyvote.com (and don't look away!)
6
"Keep an eye on this: http://pollyvote.com (and don't look away!)"
Great website, I had not run into it before.
Thanks for the link!
Great website, I had not run into it before.
Thanks for the link!
Fear Mongering is effective only when the electorate is filled with Drumphs beloved "poorly educated" cowards. Be afraid be very afraid is the Republican theme song followed by only we can eliminate these faux boogeymen we have gotten you to fear. Never has FDRs the only thing we have to fear is fear itself been more relevant. America is the Home of the Brave but with the Republicans killing off education budgets the minute they become State Governors the number of dolt cowards continues to expand exponentially and no surprise entrenches Republicans in their Red States. Their biggest fear is that being White gives you a leg up and keeps you safe and superior has been blown to smithereens by the laudable performance of a mixed race President elected in two landslides. I pray that the same coalition that brought Obama to power remains intact and that Women, Latinos, African-Americans, Highly Educated, and if Bernie does not mess things up Youth bring common sense back to the White House.
22
I notice many commenters here believe that news headlines (as opposed to the actual content of the news) for this week defines enduring reality, as if the previous 12 months had not happened at all, and entirely predictable events of the next few months will never happen.
The idea that the Republican Party is in fact sound, since it is "uniting behind Trump", but the the Democrats are severely fractured is "through the looking glass" analysis.
The entire past year have revealed the severe factionalization of the Republicans: the complete disconnect between the Plutocratic establishment, and the working class rank and file, and the separation of the Christian Dominionists from everyone else. With no opponent left, the lack of obvious opposition to Trump at the moment is entirely predictable.
One the other hand Democrats agree on practically everything, and have liked BOTH of their candidates consistently the entire time. That Sanders is still in the race necessarily creates "horserace" news coverage, but to believe that the Democrats are collapsing in chaos is simply insane.
The idea that the Republican Party is in fact sound, since it is "uniting behind Trump", but the the Democrats are severely fractured is "through the looking glass" analysis.
The entire past year have revealed the severe factionalization of the Republicans: the complete disconnect between the Plutocratic establishment, and the working class rank and file, and the separation of the Christian Dominionists from everyone else. With no opponent left, the lack of obvious opposition to Trump at the moment is entirely predictable.
One the other hand Democrats agree on practically everything, and have liked BOTH of their candidates consistently the entire time. That Sanders is still in the race necessarily creates "horserace" news coverage, but to believe that the Democrats are collapsing in chaos is simply insane.
27
Trump's victory will not break up the GOP. However you view him, Trump is simply a more incoherent, and less qualified version of the usual Republican idiocy. Think of Trump as a strong breeze blowing across a field of wheat; the stalks will bend, but the moment he passes they will return to their original position.
It is becoming clear that the punditocracy has move to another field of speculation in their endless need to seem clever and relevant.
It is becoming clear that the punditocracy has move to another field of speculation in their endless need to seem clever and relevant.
6
Excellent piece!
When pondering the 'Trump phenomenon' yesterday, I was reminded of a quote attributed to Lenin (correctly or not...). In the aftermath of the fall of Tsar Nicholas II, he was asked, who now has the power? He replied, "The power is lying in the streets. We just have to go out and seize it".
Except in this case the Republican party wasn't toppled, it simply made itself irrelevant.
When pondering the 'Trump phenomenon' yesterday, I was reminded of a quote attributed to Lenin (correctly or not...). In the aftermath of the fall of Tsar Nicholas II, he was asked, who now has the power? He replied, "The power is lying in the streets. We just have to go out and seize it".
Except in this case the Republican party wasn't toppled, it simply made itself irrelevant.
8
It is worthwhile to recall the persistent strain of anti-immigrant Know-Nothingism that has been a key part of the GOP since its founding. Trump, in this sense, is a true Republican.
15
Intra party controversy is nothing new, but it seems unprecedented that an outsider can wreak such havoc. A colorful reality series celeb has elbowed his way to the top, and pushed aside the establishment simply by winging it.
Democratic party should be taking notes. It's only a matter of time before a charismatic Hollywood liberal decides to have some fun during primary season.
Democratic party should be taking notes. It's only a matter of time before a charismatic Hollywood liberal decides to have some fun during primary season.
4
Actors turned politician tend to end up as Republicans (Reagan, Schwartznegger, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono).
10
In the TV show Revolution from a couple years ago there as a throw-away reference to "President Affleck."
Manufactured "empty suit" politicians may exist in both parties, but only in the G.O.P. have they risen to national politics.
Reagan was an actor who may not have been senile when he was first elected, but was always a good spokesman for the sharks.
Bush Sr. had a real resume. What about Dan Quayle?
W? He got elected as a known ignoramus who never was able to grow into his office, but was supported a "base" that included the most predatory corporate interests, evangelicals, and the heckling classes.
Marco Rubio?
Sonny Bono? (All you have to do is just say the name.)
Reagan was an actor who may not have been senile when he was first elected, but was always a good spokesman for the sharks.
Bush Sr. had a real resume. What about Dan Quayle?
W? He got elected as a known ignoramus who never was able to grow into his office, but was supported a "base" that included the most predatory corporate interests, evangelicals, and the heckling classes.
Marco Rubio?
Sonny Bono? (All you have to do is just say the name.)
1
For the good of the country, it would be best for the two major parties to disintegrate, and no longer exist. Neither really represent the majority of people in the US. Both rely on big, bad money and propaganda to sway low intelligence/low information voters toward violence here and abroad. That means fist fights here at group rallies, and bombs overseas for Yemen, Syria, Iraq, etc.
Time for thinking, compassionate citizens to reject the corruption and either quickly reform their respective parties (hard to do, they;re so entrenched) or start new ones (my preference.) That is why I will be voting third party until it succeeds. It will be a long road, but it needs to start now.
Time for thinking, compassionate citizens to reject the corruption and either quickly reform their respective parties (hard to do, they;re so entrenched) or start new ones (my preference.) That is why I will be voting third party until it succeeds. It will be a long road, but it needs to start now.
8
There are two problems that all third parties in the US must confront: the winner-take-all structure and the sheer size of the two current parties. Winner-take-all prevents any third party from having a voice in actual governing unless they can convince a huge number of people to their cause. The size of the parties and the fact that they generally each take the two most obvious sides of an issue tends to suck all the air out of the room forcing third parties to be nuanced in a system that doesn't reward nuance.
If you want a third party - and Maine is a good place to start because of its size - you need to work on changing rules away from winner-take-all so that a third party can get its foot in the door and have a seat at the table.
If you want a third party - and Maine is a good place to start because of its size - you need to work on changing rules away from winner-take-all so that a third party can get its foot in the door and have a seat at the table.
There are only two official ballot lines for political parties in the US. All upstarts must spend hundreds of millions of dollars in every election just to get onto general election ballots.
Because of "cultural fears and resentments" the Republicans, beginning with Nixon's southern strategy, have manipulated the working class into voting against its interests. A new party that unites progressives, minorities and the working class, could well become predominate. Mr. Sanders is the vanguard of this. In state after state he polls strongly with progressives and young voters AND in rural working class areas.
The challenge for a new party will be to create a tolerant stance that counters polarization on issues like abortion. This is not as difficult as it may sound. The common ground is the fact that obviously no one celebrates abortions. But most people support choice. A new synthesis is already visible amongst younger people who oppose abortion personally but support choice. This leaves immigration. The country is increasing diverse, including in quite a few rural areas. There is a strong case to be made against reactionary attitudes toward immigration. Specifically, crimes rates are lower amongst immigrants than amongst the native born. And there is considerable evidence that immigration, far from being an economic drag, tends support a robust economy.
Even amongst some of the religiously inclined there is good reason to support an inclusive new party that is principled and committed to justice and fairness.
Liberal and business elites are liable to be marginalized by the new party. Perhaps a good name would be the Unity Party. Coming soon!
The challenge for a new party will be to create a tolerant stance that counters polarization on issues like abortion. This is not as difficult as it may sound. The common ground is the fact that obviously no one celebrates abortions. But most people support choice. A new synthesis is already visible amongst younger people who oppose abortion personally but support choice. This leaves immigration. The country is increasing diverse, including in quite a few rural areas. There is a strong case to be made against reactionary attitudes toward immigration. Specifically, crimes rates are lower amongst immigrants than amongst the native born. And there is considerable evidence that immigration, far from being an economic drag, tends support a robust economy.
Even amongst some of the religiously inclined there is good reason to support an inclusive new party that is principled and committed to justice and fairness.
Liberal and business elites are liable to be marginalized by the new party. Perhaps a good name would be the Unity Party. Coming soon!
4
Republicanism is a torpedo that sunk working class solidarity in the US.
Right now, the population is growing faster than the economy. That is why many people think their children will be poorer than they are.
Right now, the population is growing faster than the economy. That is why many people think their children will be poorer than they are.
By saying there were issues with immigration in the past, it appears the author I'd trying to trivialize the country's current immigration issues.
I think there are significant differences and the comparisons are not valid.
At what time in the past was there a concerted corporate effort to displace American incumbent workers with a program such as the very flawed H1b, L1 and B1 so-called skilled worker visa program?
I think there are significant differences and the comparisons are not valid.
At what time in the past was there a concerted corporate effort to displace American incumbent workers with a program such as the very flawed H1b, L1 and B1 so-called skilled worker visa program?
7
These programs are a relatively new phenomenon but they are relatively small scale, and they are not what Trump's nativist supporters are concerned about.
3
Jasr - these improperly used and little audited visas are become pervasive in IT across the country. As such it is a big deal. This has affected too many people. The advocacy for increased H1b visas was a factor in an election upset in Northern Virginia last year.
It is a factor in my household also.
It is a factor in my household also.
3
The last thing software companies want is competing coders with money.
The essay leaves out the odd Woodrow Wilson, the first Democrat and Southerner elected (in 1913) since 1848, an intellectual elitist progressive racist red-baiting nativist, a mixed bag of tricks (and a far cry from Teddy Roosevelt and later, FDR). His only liberal traits were workers-union support and promoting democracy abroad.
6
The narrative on this history continues to get distorted. The so-called "nativist" objections are to the Holy Roman Empire legal fictions being imported (and, as with the pre-Civil War Taney Court, the current SCOTUS again excludes any representation from north of the Mason-Dixon line and has been going through contortions to redefine common English words, making such concerns not unfounded).
The Mason-Dixon line was about preventing these fictions being imported to the country; it is a thousand-year-old effort, beginning with the Constitutions of Clarendon and before, by Ango-Saxons, Norse, Welsh and Scots (and Reformation & Enlightenment French and Germans) to keep the legal system "real".
The current legal fiction at issue: the fiction of "virgin birth". The English Midlands Reformation and Enlightenment (Fell, Crick, etc) has made paternity as inexpensively provable as maternity for the first time in world history. International human rights treaties and the US Constitution require that a child's citizenship(s) derive from the parents' citizenships; it is a violation of the child's rights (and needs for parents to be held responsible for meeting the child's needs) to say otherwise.
The "Know-Nothing Party" (which might have been an ironic name) that converted into the Republican Party of Lincoln was about exactly this.
The Mason-Dixon line was about preventing these fictions being imported to the country; it is a thousand-year-old effort, beginning with the Constitutions of Clarendon and before, by Ango-Saxons, Norse, Welsh and Scots (and Reformation & Enlightenment French and Germans) to keep the legal system "real".
The current legal fiction at issue: the fiction of "virgin birth". The English Midlands Reformation and Enlightenment (Fell, Crick, etc) has made paternity as inexpensively provable as maternity for the first time in world history. International human rights treaties and the US Constitution require that a child's citizenship(s) derive from the parents' citizenships; it is a violation of the child's rights (and needs for parents to be held responsible for meeting the child's needs) to say otherwise.
The "Know-Nothing Party" (which might have been an ironic name) that converted into the Republican Party of Lincoln was about exactly this.
1
The Dems are suffering from a different flavor of the same malady. For decades the party of FDR has allowed hard won gains to erode for workers, women, children and others they claim to represent while the party elite and insiders make deals with big finance, pharma, defense contractors etc. Trump and Sanders are wake up calls that both parties should reform their corrupt ways.
9
Gee, the GOP seems to coming together behind Trump just fine. I would be more concerned about the corporatist/progressive split in the DNC.
11
The party leadership is coming together nicely, but I don't think the rest of the party is. I think the party leadership just thinks they can continue to do what they did in 2010, but Trump feels fundamentally different. As the election nears, he will either be "teachable" - as some party leaders have said - and will walk away from everything he has said so far this election leaving Republicans broken or he will continue and destroy everything in his path. And, even if he is elected, most people don't understand that he has promised things that he will never, ever be able to deliver. So, Republicans will be hurt even if they win.
Sometimes it seems like the only thing keeping the Republican party together is brand recognition.
Sometimes it seems like the only thing keeping the Republican party together is brand recognition.
1
Yes! And what fun!
Mrs. Clinton and her supporters haven't even begun to face up to this issue yet.
Are they going to walk right into the propeller??
Is Willie Nelson going to ride down from the hills to save us??
Stay tuned!!
Mrs. Clinton and her supporters haven't even begun to face up to this issue yet.
Are they going to walk right into the propeller??
Is Willie Nelson going to ride down from the hills to save us??
Stay tuned!!
Pretty good article about party reallignment, but you left out Jackson and the emergence of the Democratic party in 1828. The article is basically a very brief summary of Skowronek's "The Politics Presidents Make."
1
Mitt Romney is coming out of this smelling like roses.
He was a fairly effective governor of Mass and worked very effectively with the Democratic super-majority in the state congress to pass universal health care. If he just had stuck to his guns, he would have been president.
But he was tainted by influence from the Republican Party. The same party that should be shut away and never heard from again.
The best thing would be if the Republican Party core splits up into its natural divisions: 80% white supremacist and 20% right-slightly moderate. The 20% would go over to the Dems and the 80% can be given a one-way ticket to Belarus...
He was a fairly effective governor of Mass and worked very effectively with the Democratic super-majority in the state congress to pass universal health care. If he just had stuck to his guns, he would have been president.
But he was tainted by influence from the Republican Party. The same party that should be shut away and never heard from again.
The best thing would be if the Republican Party core splits up into its natural divisions: 80% white supremacist and 20% right-slightly moderate. The 20% would go over to the Dems and the 80% can be given a one-way ticket to Belarus...
121
I think Bernie proves the Dems won't allow even those 20% to infect their party anymore.
It isn't just the Republican party that is swept up in discontent and change. The Reagan model, adopted by both parties, simply didn't work out. Trickle-down never happened. The huge, costly military, and the endless wars, sap our treasury and put budgetary constraints on virtually everything else.
The middle- and working-classes are bewildered. Conservative or liberal, they feel that the government just doesn't care about them. The politicians seem to only be interested in their donors.
The middle- and working-classes are divided over cultural issues--race, abortion, multiculturalism and so on--while the rich keep getting richer and life becomes tougher for everybody else.
The establishments of both parties are discredited, and change is clearly underway.
The middle- and working-classes are bewildered. Conservative or liberal, they feel that the government just doesn't care about them. The politicians seem to only be interested in their donors.
The middle- and working-classes are divided over cultural issues--race, abortion, multiculturalism and so on--while the rich keep getting richer and life becomes tougher for everybody else.
The establishments of both parties are discredited, and change is clearly underway.
10
Lots of great points but in all fairness his article should be about Bernie and the Democrats who are so much less unified than the Republicans are.
5
Agreed. Clinton will split the party for sure.
Whichever one comes out on top in June, everyone here salivating over the idea of the Democratic party splitting apart will look pretty silly when they firmly unite behind their nominee heading into the general. Or has everyone already forgotten what happened between Hillary and Obama in '08 before and after the convention?
1
Thank you, Mr. Wilentz, for a great contribution.
Your column, for me, has stimulated reflection on the political thinking of Karl Popper and John Dewey.
The following is a paraphrase of, and my elaboration upon, a point made by Popper in his "The Open Society and Its Enemies".
Those who desire to wield power over others are a generally mediocre and frequently venal lot. The function of political systems, governmental structures, educational institutions, and the law is to curb the excesses of those who harbor the aforementioned desire. Unfortunately, such ambitious, mediocre, and often venal individuals are also those who control political systems, governmental structures, educational institutions, and the law--and it is in their interest, particularly within the context of a supposedly democratic society, to keep those who fall under their sway uneducated, misinformed, fearful, wholly devoid of a spirit of critical reflection, and, therefore, powerless.
Maybe political parties fragment when their supporters, so little capable of critically thinking problems through, strongly feel in their bones that they have been callously duped by a generally mediocre and venal "establishment leadership".
Strong feelings, alas, are no substitute for a thoughtful political realignment--for the revolution that is obviously necessary if we are to rekindle the spirit of John Dewey, and revitalize democracy and further actualize its liberating potential.
Your column, for me, has stimulated reflection on the political thinking of Karl Popper and John Dewey.
The following is a paraphrase of, and my elaboration upon, a point made by Popper in his "The Open Society and Its Enemies".
Those who desire to wield power over others are a generally mediocre and frequently venal lot. The function of political systems, governmental structures, educational institutions, and the law is to curb the excesses of those who harbor the aforementioned desire. Unfortunately, such ambitious, mediocre, and often venal individuals are also those who control political systems, governmental structures, educational institutions, and the law--and it is in their interest, particularly within the context of a supposedly democratic society, to keep those who fall under their sway uneducated, misinformed, fearful, wholly devoid of a spirit of critical reflection, and, therefore, powerless.
Maybe political parties fragment when their supporters, so little capable of critically thinking problems through, strongly feel in their bones that they have been callously duped by a generally mediocre and venal "establishment leadership".
Strong feelings, alas, are no substitute for a thoughtful political realignment--for the revolution that is obviously necessary if we are to rekindle the spirit of John Dewey, and revitalize democracy and further actualize its liberating potential.
The GOP IS falling apart. The Democrats are just hanging on by a threat. They, too are on the verge of collapse.
8
For the longest time the republicans have been tied to the idea of conservatism.
In reality, the republicans abandoned the supporting practice of fiscal conservatism a long time ago. Reagan and the Bushes ran deficits of their own making.
Republicans of late have abandoned environmental conservatism. They are prohibited from saying the phrase, "climate change," even though climate change has become the defining crisis of our age.
Some republicans still hold fast to social conservatism. But what passes for social conservatism tends to work in practice as racism or sexism. People for the most part don't tolerate that behavior.
So, in order to have a party based on conservatism, you have to commit to conserving something beyond your inherited privileges.
What's left to conserve?
In reality, the republicans abandoned the supporting practice of fiscal conservatism a long time ago. Reagan and the Bushes ran deficits of their own making.
Republicans of late have abandoned environmental conservatism. They are prohibited from saying the phrase, "climate change," even though climate change has become the defining crisis of our age.
Some republicans still hold fast to social conservatism. But what passes for social conservatism tends to work in practice as racism or sexism. People for the most part don't tolerate that behavior.
So, in order to have a party based on conservatism, you have to commit to conserving something beyond your inherited privileges.
What's left to conserve?
10
The general tendency of republics and representative democracies, once the population grows to a size that makes direct democracy impractical and representative democracy necessary (i.e., past the very-small-town level) is to form parties, which will generally shake down in a binary configuration, one large 'conservative' party and one large 'liberal' party. There may be smaller aggregations, but those parties will lean left or right, and in parliamentary systems they will swim in the wake of the whale, i.e., ally with the party of their bent.
And this is as it should be. One-party rule with no 'loyal opposition' to curb its excesses and question or challenge its plans never works out well, even when it's the party you support.
There will be a 'conservative' party formed from the ashes of the current GOP if Trump succeeds in burning it down. It may even call itself the 'Republican Party'. I for one hope a 'Grand New Party' takes the phoenix as its sigil, and revives the Rockefeller Republican tradition. In my youth, a person of intellect and integrity could call himself a Republican and not invite incredulous laughter.
And this is as it should be. One-party rule with no 'loyal opposition' to curb its excesses and question or challenge its plans never works out well, even when it's the party you support.
There will be a 'conservative' party formed from the ashes of the current GOP if Trump succeeds in burning it down. It may even call itself the 'Republican Party'. I for one hope a 'Grand New Party' takes the phoenix as its sigil, and revives the Rockefeller Republican tradition. In my youth, a person of intellect and integrity could call himself a Republican and not invite incredulous laughter.
1
Assuring democratic representation of large populations requires exploitation of scale-independence in politics. Politics does exhibit the property of self-similarity - it feels the same at all levels.
President Roosevelt was president from 1933-1945. If you look at census statistics this was a period where immigration may have been the lowest in US history. https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf. I am a pretty big fan of Roosevelt but something about comparing the numbers to the facts asserted in this article makes me wonder if the author is arguing from conclusions to facts as opposed to facts to conclusions.
7
Agreed. The article gives other historical misimpressions. There have been only two major party collapses. One was the Federalists who collapsed NOT in 1800 but in around 1815 because of opposition to the war of 1812, and support of secession. Moreover, if it were not for the larger power given to the southern states by the 3/5 clause for slaves, Adams and the Federalists would have won in 1800. The other party were the Whigs, and it was varying reactions to slavery which broke up that party. Only a national catharsis as great as that which drove states to consider secession resulted in breakups of established major parties.
1
I don't know why people can't tell the truth.
" . . . calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers . . . "
I dislike Trump quite a lot. But he did not say that all Mexicans were evil, horrible people. He was specifically talking about some of the illegal aliens entering our country - illegally.
Lots of US citizens feel that no one has listened to their problems and concerns for a long time. They feel that Trump understands that illegals actually are taking jobs and driving down wages. Maybe they aren't great jobs - but they would certainly pay more if there was less competition for them.
Not all Trump backers are racist haters. Some of them are; but many of them are people who are hurting economically, and have been for a long time.
Democrat and Republican leaders have not been listening. (Sorry, Bernie is not a Democrat, and in the past he has never been a leader.)
" . . . calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers . . . "
I dislike Trump quite a lot. But he did not say that all Mexicans were evil, horrible people. He was specifically talking about some of the illegal aliens entering our country - illegally.
Lots of US citizens feel that no one has listened to their problems and concerns for a long time. They feel that Trump understands that illegals actually are taking jobs and driving down wages. Maybe they aren't great jobs - but they would certainly pay more if there was less competition for them.
Not all Trump backers are racist haters. Some of them are; but many of them are people who are hurting economically, and have been for a long time.
Democrat and Republican leaders have not been listening. (Sorry, Bernie is not a Democrat, and in the past he has never been a leader.)
13
Neither was Trump 6 months ago. He's a celebrity who's good at reading crowds, not a leader.
2
Perhaps if Trump's followers hadn't been drinking the Republican "koolade" since the trickle down Reagan years and voting against their own best interests, they would've realized what the GOP was up to. Following the Bush years into the multi-trillion dollar Iraq rabbit hole, the tax breaks for the wealthy, divisive politics, obstructionism of the GOP against Obama's policies created this mess which now is blamed on Democrats and Obama. If you've been voting Repub - you created this monster . . . and Trump is truly a monster. A racist, divisive, misogynist, know-nothing 1%er, Uber-wealthy, monster.
6
You comment makes me ill.
I live very near a predominentally Hispanic town in Dupage County, IL--West Chicago-- where a large population of immigrants who work menial jobs live. These "illegals," as you call them, work very hard at many jobs that go begging to be filled in my very affluent county.
And guess what? This town has no more murders or rapes or assaults than the rest of the county. These people are just that--people.
And guess what? You come from "illegals," too.
If you bothered to do a modicum of research, you would realize that economists have determined that Mexican immigrants have actuaaly been an economic gain for the economy.
While I agree that some immigration should be curtailed (H1b visas for example), it is mindless racism that's behind Trump's anti-immigrant comments. Not sensible economic theory.
I live very near a predominentally Hispanic town in Dupage County, IL--West Chicago-- where a large population of immigrants who work menial jobs live. These "illegals," as you call them, work very hard at many jobs that go begging to be filled in my very affluent county.
And guess what? This town has no more murders or rapes or assaults than the rest of the county. These people are just that--people.
And guess what? You come from "illegals," too.
If you bothered to do a modicum of research, you would realize that economists have determined that Mexican immigrants have actuaaly been an economic gain for the economy.
While I agree that some immigration should be curtailed (H1b visas for example), it is mindless racism that's behind Trump's anti-immigrant comments. Not sensible economic theory.
I wish there were more op-eds like this one. Nice to read informed history applied to current events.
15
This analysis leaves out one huge factor in the equation: the Citizens United Supreme Court decision which effectively killed democracy in the United States and turned our democracy into a plutocracy.
Because, as the presidency of Barack Obama and the crowning of Hillary Clinton and the dirty politics by the Democratic party elites has shown, voting is irrelevant. Wall Street and the One-Percent's (and their lackey underling's) interests are served. The rest of us have to fight over the scrapes.
Dodd-Frank was weak tea reform they does the bare minimum and the Affordable Care Act cemented into place a crony-capitalist system that doesn't care for all poor people nor is it affordable big business wanted that.
It would be nice to dream that the Repugnant Republicans will implode. But those who see reality see that monied interests will decide the next election, and no matter who is elected, the system will stay exactly the same: broken.
Because, if Trump and a Republican Congress is elected, I will bet a million dollars that the first bill shoved through Congress will be an immigration law that will enable thousands of highly skilled and low skilled workers to immigrate here legally. Why? Because Wall Street and business--backers of the Republican party-- want it because they want cheap labor.
Mark my words and bet on it.
Because, as the presidency of Barack Obama and the crowning of Hillary Clinton and the dirty politics by the Democratic party elites has shown, voting is irrelevant. Wall Street and the One-Percent's (and their lackey underling's) interests are served. The rest of us have to fight over the scrapes.
Dodd-Frank was weak tea reform they does the bare minimum and the Affordable Care Act cemented into place a crony-capitalist system that doesn't care for all poor people nor is it affordable big business wanted that.
It would be nice to dream that the Repugnant Republicans will implode. But those who see reality see that monied interests will decide the next election, and no matter who is elected, the system will stay exactly the same: broken.
Because, if Trump and a Republican Congress is elected, I will bet a million dollars that the first bill shoved through Congress will be an immigration law that will enable thousands of highly skilled and low skilled workers to immigrate here legally. Why? Because Wall Street and business--backers of the Republican party-- want it because they want cheap labor.
Mark my words and bet on it.
13
As they say, 'The system isn't broken, it's working exactly as it was designed to. Just not for the benefit of you and I'.
2
Prof. Wilentz puts US history into perspective, and it is widely predicted that, indeed, the Republican party is on the verge of cracking up. Ideas favored by a wider constituency will have to survive under a new party name. RIP elephants.
6
Teddy Roosevelt campaigned against big business with the Bull Moose party. I don't see Mr. Trump doing that, but I do see Mr. Sanders doing that.
10
No, Senator Sanders will back Sec. Clinton and return to the Senate.
6
Pete's scenario might hopefully be the outcome. But, I don't discount Ron's view when I see Jeff Weaver and other Sanders' staff apparently floating rationales for declaring a "corrupt" and "unfair" nominating process for a candidate apparently willing to remain a Democrat for only as long as he has a chance to take over the party. It really does seem at this point as if all bets are off.
1
Let's get one thing straight. This is a question of style within the Republican Party not substance. Sen. John McCain and the other Republican elites agree 100% with the Donald's message, they just don't care for the boorish messenger. If his message didn't appeal to the majority of Republican voters he wouldn't be the presumptive nominee. Their is no ideological division within the Republican voting public, only a cosmetic one. Those who are willing to come out from behind closed doors and show how repugnant the party's true beliefs are and those who wish to keep the ugly truth a secret for one more election cycle. They don't have to worry about a possible break up, just someone pointing out what has been long covered up.
54
Hi Rick. I don't believe you, sorry.
I don't believe that GOP orthodoxy believes NATO is obsolete. I don't think they believe Japan should rearm and get hold of nuclear weapons. I don't think the top brass admire Putin. I don't think they want to conduct detente with North Korea.
I don't think they want to spend billions on building a wall. I don't think they want religion to become a mandatory element of foreign passports. I don't think they want to deport 11 million people by their hair, pulling them from the arms of their American children.
I'm not a Republican, but I genuinely don't believe any of that to be true.
I don't believe that GOP orthodoxy believes NATO is obsolete. I don't think they believe Japan should rearm and get hold of nuclear weapons. I don't think the top brass admire Putin. I don't think they want to conduct detente with North Korea.
I don't think they want to spend billions on building a wall. I don't think they want religion to become a mandatory element of foreign passports. I don't think they want to deport 11 million people by their hair, pulling them from the arms of their American children.
I'm not a Republican, but I genuinely don't believe any of that to be true.
4
@ jimbo, I wish it were not true but polling shows that 84% of Republicans now back Trump. It doesn't matter what they believe if their willing to betray those beliefs for power.
Trump is not the first to brake the G.O.P., to his credit (I never thought I would say it, coming from an arrogant, ignorant, and vulgar bully), and he won't be the last, if its 'establishment' continues to divorce its complacent privilege from its base.
Within the next ten years, we will become more like Western Europe and feature a multi-party system. The Republican Party will splinter into a Conservative Party and a New Republican Party. The Conservative Party, whose platform will be socially and fiscally conservative, will attract most of the evangelical and Tea Party members and a few Trump supporters. The New Republican Party, whose platform will be socially moderate and fiscally moderate to conservative, will attract libertarians, some Trump supporters, and the GOP establishment.
On the Democratic side, we will get a Progressive Party and a New Democratic Party. The Progressive Party, whose platform will be socially and fiscally progressive, will attract most of the Bernie supporters, Green Party members and a few Union households. The New Democratic Party, whose platform will be socially moderate to liberal and fiscally liberal, will attract a few Trump supporters (blue dog Democrats), many Union households, new Democrats from the Clinton era and the Democratic establishment.
The Conservative Party will constitute 15 to 20%, the New Republican Party will constitute 25 to 30%, the Progressive Party will constitute 15 to 20%, and the New Democratic Party will constitute 25 to 30% of the U.S. population.
On the Democratic side, we will get a Progressive Party and a New Democratic Party. The Progressive Party, whose platform will be socially and fiscally progressive, will attract most of the Bernie supporters, Green Party members and a few Union households. The New Democratic Party, whose platform will be socially moderate to liberal and fiscally liberal, will attract a few Trump supporters (blue dog Democrats), many Union households, new Democrats from the Clinton era and the Democratic establishment.
The Conservative Party will constitute 15 to 20%, the New Republican Party will constitute 25 to 30%, the Progressive Party will constitute 15 to 20%, and the New Democratic Party will constitute 25 to 30% of the U.S. population.
Dream on...
it is amazing that you can not only predict, as people have wrongly been speculating for generations, the break-up of the two-party system but, in addition, that you already know names of and number of adherents to these future political parties. any other futurist madness on offer?
2
"Hamilton, an immigrant himself, called for their wholesale deportation, remarking that 'the mass ought to be obliged to leave the country.'”
Thank you, Sean Wilentz, for offering this needed corrective to the current unjustified worship of the historical Alexander Hamilton, who is not the same as the protagonist of Lin-Manuel Miranda's wonderful musical. In some ways, Hamilton was the Donald Trump of his times.
Thank you, Sean Wilentz, for offering this needed corrective to the current unjustified worship of the historical Alexander Hamilton, who is not the same as the protagonist of Lin-Manuel Miranda's wonderful musical. In some ways, Hamilton was the Donald Trump of his times.
3
It's true that Hamilton-worship is getting a bit out of hand these days, but for all his faults, we should not forget that Hamilton was a man of courage (fighting in the Revolution, unlike the draft-dodging Donald in Vietnam), and intelligence, as he showed as Secretary of the Treasury, whether you agree or disagree with his policies. Trump has never shown any sign of either. Seriously, could you imagine Trump writing anything remotely like the Federalist Papers?
1
Enjoyed the history lesson. Now on to shop class. Despite my GOP DNA, I'm encouraged by Trump. We had little to work with: McCain, Romney and poor old Jeb. I'm not selling the populist short nor am I judging the path Trump has taken to grab the stage. I'm no less than neutral and waiting for results.
1
The closing of the Republican mind continues.
33
In 1860, the Democratic Party split in two on the eve of the convention. The two parts nominated different presidential candidates. The party did not reunite until after the Civil War.
That may be what is happening now. If two moderate Republicans governors succeed at capturing the Libertarian party nomination later this month, they may well attract sufficient funding and support from the old Republican establishment driven away by Trump. Voters seeking a moderate alternative to Trumpism might reach a large-enough mass to prevent Trump's election. Even Democrats unhappy about voting for Clinton, but unable to vote for Trump, might find a solution to their dilemma here.
If the desire for an alternative to Trump and Clinton moves in this direction, it could well leave the RNC in ruins after the election, at which time the party's refugees could return and rebuild.
That may be what is happening now. If two moderate Republicans governors succeed at capturing the Libertarian party nomination later this month, they may well attract sufficient funding and support from the old Republican establishment driven away by Trump. Voters seeking a moderate alternative to Trumpism might reach a large-enough mass to prevent Trump's election. Even Democrats unhappy about voting for Clinton, but unable to vote for Trump, might find a solution to their dilemma here.
If the desire for an alternative to Trump and Clinton moves in this direction, it could well leave the RNC in ruins after the election, at which time the party's refugees could return and rebuild.
1
Repeatedly losing the White House in exchange for control of both houses of Congress, a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States along with majority of state executive mansions and legislatures is a transformative political bargain for the white European American majority in their white Republican Party. Trump is Reagan without the acting and political experience and rhetorical euphemism.
6
It's depressing to read article after article that ignores the basic reality. The Republicans have WON. Republicanism has a stranglehold on the country. Astronomical profits and tax breaks for the corporate filth and the Pentagon and massive cutbacks to education, science, public health, environmental oversight, and the systematic destruction of the middle class. Republicanism in its most vile and destructive form controls both major political parties. The Republicans have already won the 2016 election, regardless of whether we wind up with Hillary or Donald.
18
The Democratic party is experiencing a similar breakdown. Missing from the article's analysis is the way the democratic party more closely resembles the Republican party of our childhood; willing to bend for every deep pocket lobbyist and campaign contributor. Even without Republican obstructionists, Democrats are paralyzed by their own inability to take effective action to correct the social and economic problems that are dragging our country down.
We learned from Obama that 'hope and change' will only happen to the degree that our capitalist overlords will tolerate. We learned from this election cycle that our electoral system still kinda works, in spite of the influence of super-pacs and special interest groups. There's hope in that.
We learned from Obama that 'hope and change' will only happen to the degree that our capitalist overlords will tolerate. We learned from this election cycle that our electoral system still kinda works, in spite of the influence of super-pacs and special interest groups. There's hope in that.
7
Let them sink and drown in the cesspool of their own self-serving, self-enriching policies of inequality. The party deserves to be eviscerated and forced to rebuild from scratch. But somehow I suspect their extreme wealth-enabling hypocrisy will live on, perhaps under a different name.
6
To encapsulate what has to be one of the most surrealistic developments in national politics, I turn to the ultimate surrealist, Salvador Dali, who said: “What is important is to spread confusion, not eliminate it.”
Trump's ascendancy can best be described by G.K. Chesterton's observation that, "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
What sweet irony it is that the party of Lincoln has strayed so far from his astute observations, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and "With malice toward none, with charity for all . . ."
It has become a party with malice to all but a select few and charity for none accept those same select few.
Trump's ascendancy can best be described by G.K. Chesterton's observation that, "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
What sweet irony it is that the party of Lincoln has strayed so far from his astute observations, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and "With malice toward none, with charity for all . . ."
It has become a party with malice to all but a select few and charity for none accept those same select few.
19
I think this is an interesting and well-reasoned argument. The party of Reagan is certainly not recognizable anymore, even if vestiges of Reagan (e.g., anti-civil rights) still permeate the conversation. But the nativism, isolationism and anti-free trade really take the GOP back into the 19th Century. The Republicans of that time, between Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, would actually identify well with the Trump Republicans.
A very interesting comparison to our leaders of the past. My belief that Mr Trump will not break the party apart but the the party has to listen to the disenfranchised voters that are voting for him!!. I belief is that the Republican Party needs to adapt to the voice of the people who echo their anger at the established leaders. Even the Democratic party can't find solid ground Mrs Clinton! Its a crazy year this election cycle
1
It's had to grasp how the "followers" can be consolidated, behind Trump since there have been no cohesive policies set forth. Lots of hate, resentment and distrust - - perhaps the only consistent thread is that the destruction of government as we've known it is an aim, regardless of who gets hurt.
5
It looks like there will be always be a rock-solid foundation of cultured spite, misanthropy, ill will and stupidity for the Know Nothing White Nativist party to flourish in America, no matter what they call themselves, as long as they offer just the right carnival-barking vulture capitalist to "the common people who know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
Perhaps the Republican Party needs to rebrand itself as the H.L. Mencken Party and let Donald Trump begin to start swinging the national wrecking ball again and continue the good work of the 2001 - 2009 Bush-Cheney Demolition Derby.
Perhaps the Republican Party needs to rebrand itself as the H.L. Mencken Party and let Donald Trump begin to start swinging the national wrecking ball again and continue the good work of the 2001 - 2009 Bush-Cheney Demolition Derby.
108
Not the kind of language that the original Socrates, invariably polite, would have used.
Do read him some time when you have a spare moment.
May I ask you respectfully to use some other name to post under?
Signed:
an admirer of the original Socrates
Do read him some time when you have a spare moment.
May I ask you respectfully to use some other name to post under?
Signed:
an admirer of the original Socrates
1
The Republican party, with the elite allowing it, has become the party of small minds, intolerance and ignorance dressed up as patriotism. America can't be great if the populists, knowing as little as possible while angry and fearful as a result, pretend diversity and immigrants are the problem when in reality they are the -solution-. The greater good is not of interest to social conservatives, who worship the individual, but only those who are like them.
This country has become a colossal failure because of the obstructionism from the most ignorant members of society. And they're all Republicans. The party needs to die to save itself...and perhaps what is left of what could have become a great country.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
This country has become a colossal failure because of the obstructionism from the most ignorant members of society. And they're all Republicans. The party needs to die to save itself...and perhaps what is left of what could have become a great country.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
52
Let's not forget the Southern Democratic Blue Dogs, who often vote with Republicans.
The Southern states were primarily Democratic until President Lyndon B. Johnson agreed with all of the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other black citizens and white citizens to demand desegregation in this country; LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 unfortunately outraged many segregationists in many southern states, and turned many of these states red.
This too will change as our demographics change, as many Latinos become citizens when they are born here, are educated here, and grow up understanding that they also have rights.
It's about time that all citizens have the right to vote, and that they start to do so ASAP.
Brown v. Board of Education was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954. Yet just this week, a federal court in Mississippi had to rule that the Cleveland School District in that state MUST integrate its schools. What is that voters in Mississippi and in other states not understand?
The Southern states were primarily Democratic until President Lyndon B. Johnson agreed with all of the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other black citizens and white citizens to demand desegregation in this country; LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 unfortunately outraged many segregationists in many southern states, and turned many of these states red.
This too will change as our demographics change, as many Latinos become citizens when they are born here, are educated here, and grow up understanding that they also have rights.
It's about time that all citizens have the right to vote, and that they start to do so ASAP.
Brown v. Board of Education was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954. Yet just this week, a federal court in Mississippi had to rule that the Cleveland School District in that state MUST integrate its schools. What is that voters in Mississippi and in other states not understand?
1
There is growing evidence that the Republican party will unite behind Trump as the polls show Clinton's lead plunging, already down to 3.1%.
Meanwhile Sanders lead is more than three and a half times as large at 11.6%. I would suggest that it is the Democratic party that is threatened. Should Clinton hold onto the nomination in the face of polls showing a similar advantage for Sanders entering the convention, it will be the Democratic Party in danger of being ripped apart. Perhaps this would not be the worst thing. In Thomas Frank's latest book" Listen Liberal," he clearly shows that it is the Democratic that has been the principal roadblock to passing progressive initiatives.
Meanwhile Sanders lead is more than three and a half times as large at 11.6%. I would suggest that it is the Democratic party that is threatened. Should Clinton hold onto the nomination in the face of polls showing a similar advantage for Sanders entering the convention, it will be the Democratic Party in danger of being ripped apart. Perhaps this would not be the worst thing. In Thomas Frank's latest book" Listen Liberal," he clearly shows that it is the Democratic that has been the principal roadblock to passing progressive initiatives.
9
Textbook example of whistling past the graveyard.
Ah, yes, brings to mind fond memories of that 15% lead of President Dukakis.
5
That's ludicrous. Trump has exposed the GOP as set of illogical alliances unified only by their contempt for others. It has taken decades for the relatively low-information white voters who fled to the GOP after the civil rights movement (and often became blatantly paranoid and racist after Obama's election) to recognize that they are not and never have been represented by the GOP elite. The GOP is a house of cards built on misinformation that must either reinvent itself or die. And obviously the greatest roadblock to national progress since 2010, if not 1910, has been the GOP.
4
To paraphrase George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
As Mr Wilentz is reminding us, the Whigs "collapsed over slavery" with some "joining the nativist Know-Nothing...(and) out of the chaos emerged a new antislavery party, the Republicans," It's sad for me that the Republicans of Lincoln, born out of a rejection of slavery and the No-Nothings, is about to be destroyed by the fascist and populist nativism of the tea party Trump bros. RIP evil mutant, maybe Lincoln can rest easier now with your passing.
As Mr Wilentz is reminding us, the Whigs "collapsed over slavery" with some "joining the nativist Know-Nothing...(and) out of the chaos emerged a new antislavery party, the Republicans," It's sad for me that the Republicans of Lincoln, born out of a rejection of slavery and the No-Nothings, is about to be destroyed by the fascist and populist nativism of the tea party Trump bros. RIP evil mutant, maybe Lincoln can rest easier now with your passing.
13
Talk about repeating nothingness: When Johnson realized Kennedy's liberal goals of civil rights legislation, community development, and housing and affordability initiatives in the '60's, your "antislavery Republicans" chose to organize the South in one of the most racist phases of American history. They shifted several times, but Trump's anti-immigrant implicit racism is closer to Lincoln than to Nixon!
2
Have you not heard? The party is not breaking up at all. Everyone is falling in line to the right.
6
anyone thinking lemmings?
4
Right. There's been a coup d'état. That does not mean there is no longer a Republican Party. It just means different people are "leading" it. The followers have not changed.
1
Both political parties are on the verge of a major re-structuring. The gross neglect of the working middle, by both parties, is leading to an upheaval across the political spectrum. Both right and left have pandered to various special interest groups through culture wars, while at the same time, pandering to big money interests. The result is that the vast majority of working Americans are feeling left out both politically and economically. Consequently you get Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Opposite ends of the political spectrum, but tapping into the same anger, and ultimately creating a similar seismic event for both parties.
13
Great observation. You comment made my day. Thanks a lot!
1
Ahh, yes. Two groups of revolutionaries, convinced that they together represent all of "the people", join to destroy the sitting government and to enforce the purity of their particular dogmas. All in the name of "the working people", of course. Once these two groups have seized all power and eliminated the non-purists, they will of course work in harmony in the new revolutionary order of the "American Spring".
I've heard all this before, and the story doesn't end well. Since neither group allows compromise, the two revolutionary factions will fight each other. I ask Progressives to consider which side is better armed.
I've heard all this before, and the story doesn't end well. Since neither group allows compromise, the two revolutionary factions will fight each other. I ask Progressives to consider which side is better armed.
The reason many non-Republicans threaten to vote for Trump is that both parties need to listen to the voters more, maybe even to the point that we need to throw them out and start over with two new parties entirely.
8
Sure seems to me like the GOP is getting in line behind their candidate while the dems bicker and fight. So if the party does crack up, it may well be a cracked-up party with control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Yay!
3
I'm entertaining what for me is a new line of thought, a new question. Basically it is if Trump is using the Republican Party, especially its base, or if the Party is using Trump.
In the first case, Trump needs the Party as a vehicle for the personal ends he cannot achieve outside a party structure. So he tells Republicans whatever they want to hear, even if it's a stark contradiction of what he said earlier. In the second case, Trump, being a near zero in policy and ideology, is used by the Party to dispense its own notions. Thus, a weak Trump serves mostly as a useful conduit -- a tool -- for the serving up of conservative ideas (e.g. Supreme Court nominees).
So, who's being most used, Republicans or Trump? Or Republicans now simply Trumpicans? Or vice versa?
In the first case, Trump needs the Party as a vehicle for the personal ends he cannot achieve outside a party structure. So he tells Republicans whatever they want to hear, even if it's a stark contradiction of what he said earlier. In the second case, Trump, being a near zero in policy and ideology, is used by the Party to dispense its own notions. Thus, a weak Trump serves mostly as a useful conduit -- a tool -- for the serving up of conservative ideas (e.g. Supreme Court nominees).
So, who's being most used, Republicans or Trump? Or Republicans now simply Trumpicans? Or vice versa?
11
Too early to tell.
2
John McCain says, "“I believe that the Republican Party must maintain its viability as a party,”. Sorry, John, that horse left the barn when you allowed BIG democracy-destroying money to buy your party.
100
njglea, this is curious because in the 2008 election, Obama had raised far more money than McCain had and out of sympathy I sent McCain a contribution.
But McCain did not serve me well. He turned over my name and email to the Republican party and it took years to convince them that I was not a Republican and that this was merely a one time donation to ONE Republican.
Finally they did stop.
But the point is that Obama did raise more money than McCain and currently Hillary has more money than Trump.
Democrats keep complaining about money and they keep selling themselves to Wall Street to get more of it.
But McCain did not serve me well. He turned over my name and email to the Republican party and it took years to convince them that I was not a Republican and that this was merely a one time donation to ONE Republican.
Finally they did stop.
But the point is that Obama did raise more money than McCain and currently Hillary has more money than Trump.
Democrats keep complaining about money and they keep selling themselves to Wall Street to get more of it.
2
Let's not forget Sen. McCain's role in elevating Sarah Palin to national prominence.
No mention is made here of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” party, a third party that came into existence as part of the splintering of the Republican Party, well before the 1929 Crash. It offered platform planks that would later be incorporated in part and variation into Cousin Franklin’s “New Deal”.
There is a vital role for third parties, past and present, in the political evolution of this country.
There is also a vital role for members of the “1%” of any generation to act ethically, morally, and responsibly, as the patrician Roosevelts did in the early 20th Century.
There is a vital role for third parties, past and present, in the political evolution of this country.
There is also a vital role for members of the “1%” of any generation to act ethically, morally, and responsibly, as the patrician Roosevelts did in the early 20th Century.
240
We have seen no indication that the 1% in this country is interested in, or capable of, moral and ethical behavior. We have seen a return to the rapacious depredations of later day guilded era robber barons and railroad magnates in the guise of today's banksters, real estate hucksters, defense contractors and fossil fuel exploiters. These capitalist roaders revel in their excess and greed and cry "class warfare" whenever they are called out on their invidious activities...
3
No, we do not need a third party in America, Dave G, because someone would just get control of it and put us in the same boat. 40+% of Americans self-report as Independents who lean right or left. Independent. That's the answer. Left leaning Independent Progressives will win this election.
1
A pretty good review of the basic history of major political shake ups in U.S. history. It could have used some comment on the GOPs "Southern Strategy" though as that was a critical step towards today's particular mess.
33
Has LC (loose cannon) Trump deceived everyone to the point that they think he will disrupt/antagonize the Republican elite. This is all a ploy on his part to get to the top. When he gets there his tone and opinions will alter considerably. Consider his Supreme Court list of nominees. We are all being hoodwinked by a P.T. Barnum, who will end up taking us to a new level of extremism. As many have said, God Bless America and may we survive this Machiavellian circus.
9
If Trump still wants to win, he'd better pivot to the middle. He's currently pivoting to Republican leadership to get funding for the general. I hate his SCOTUS picks; pure pandering to the people the voters are rejecting when they picked Trump.
1
It's a great article, but a little back on the news. So it needs a small makeover.
The Republican party has mostly healed.
It appears that the Democratic party is now being broken by Sanders.
The Republican party has mostly healed.
It appears that the Democratic party is now being broken by Sanders.
4
Sanders is a symptom; the party is broken on ideology. The pendulum is swinging back to progressive left against the Dems' swing to center right. Social issues, a wedge for Republicans, are the only point of agreement among Dems. It's the economy (and foreign policy as it relates to the economy), stupid.
1
If by healed, you mean the GOP will fall in line with the nominee, I think you missed the larger point. Of course, the party will back its nominee. Not to do so would be political suicide. But the point of the article rests in the ideas of Trump and how they don't particularly fit well with the larger GOP.
Hillary Clinton is a goddess. I beg to be permitted to grovel in the dirt in which she has stepped.
Those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it. That, however, does not guarantee their defeat at the polls. There is a strong congruence between the grievances of those "feeling the Berne" and those wanting to "make America great again," and it is entirely reasonable to assume that there are many Bernie backers who will vote for Trump unless their man is the VP candidate. Meanwhile Bernie has pandered to and empowered the party's most liberal elements, who promise full throated socialism in a country never disposed to go down that path. So moderate Democrats and independents, mindful of the fact that Trump has always been, under the bluster, a center-left Democrat, may also vote for Trump rather than for the socialism of a Hillary-Sanders ticket. I see a Republican victory as about a 50-50 proposition, not least because I cannot stand any of them.
3
The switch to Trump meme is nothing more than wishful thinking no matter how many times Trump repeats it. I've seen no hard evidence to back up this fantasy. (a couple small sampling polls are meaningless)Bernie's supporters are committed to ideals Trump does not support or espouse and, in some cases, opposes. (immigration reform $15 minimum wage for example) They are highly principled and too intelligent to let their hatred of Hillary allow a proto-fascist become president.
I'm with you, except that I think Sanders supporters expect to ask for full throated socialism, but achieve only moderate progress, and they think Clinton will seek moderate progress at most, and achieve nothing.
1
This argument left me unpersuaded.
The Federalist Party represented a tiny portion of Americans and broke up because as a party of elites in couldn't compete when the electorate expanded. It was not really a party as we'd define one today.
The break-up of the Whigs and of the Democrats in the 1850s did not occur over nativism but because of slavery. There is nothing in today's national landscape that looks anything like that level of sectarian conflict.
Other than the demise of the Federalist proto-party and the upheavals of the Civil War, we've had a very consistent set of parties.
Its also odd that in an article about party realignment you didn't mention Teddy Roosevelt's rebellion against his handpicked successor, Taft. It was that schism that led to the election for two terms of Wilson. The Wilson years marked a short period of Democrat ascendancy in the long run of GOP Presidencies.
It is also odd that no mention was made of the way that Democrats, including FDR in particular, had to paper over the differences between southern Democrats and northern ones. Post-LBJ, the parties have realigned to allow the GOP to absorb a large group of conservative southern voters and also resulted in it absorbing some racist and nativist elements.
The GOP is continuing is realignment as are the Democrats. What is really interesting is the question of where the loyalty of millenials will lie.
The Federalist Party represented a tiny portion of Americans and broke up because as a party of elites in couldn't compete when the electorate expanded. It was not really a party as we'd define one today.
The break-up of the Whigs and of the Democrats in the 1850s did not occur over nativism but because of slavery. There is nothing in today's national landscape that looks anything like that level of sectarian conflict.
Other than the demise of the Federalist proto-party and the upheavals of the Civil War, we've had a very consistent set of parties.
Its also odd that in an article about party realignment you didn't mention Teddy Roosevelt's rebellion against his handpicked successor, Taft. It was that schism that led to the election for two terms of Wilson. The Wilson years marked a short period of Democrat ascendancy in the long run of GOP Presidencies.
It is also odd that no mention was made of the way that Democrats, including FDR in particular, had to paper over the differences between southern Democrats and northern ones. Post-LBJ, the parties have realigned to allow the GOP to absorb a large group of conservative southern voters and also resulted in it absorbing some racist and nativist elements.
The GOP is continuing is realignment as are the Democrats. What is really interesting is the question of where the loyalty of millenials will lie.
18
I hope Sen. McCain will reconsider his position. The Republican party is a means, not an end, and history may not be kind to those who elevate party above country, or above basic human decency.
136
The former GOP launched its political suicide in 1968 with Nixon's "Southern strategy", which sought to divide and conquer the electorate with cultural wedge issues designed to camouflage its real agenda, which was to roll back the New Deal. Successive wedge issues divided and subdivided voters even more, painting the Party into a smaller and smaller corner of malcontents, until this past Primary when the Party was so divided even against itself, and its candidates were a bunch of narcissistic, opportunistic, clowns, the most extreme of which—Trump—succeeded in capturing the imagination of the "base", and poses a threat to our democracy itself. The Democrats must now unite to protect the country and the world.
87
For a suicide diagnosis, it looks awfully like the GOP are thriving and the Dems are committing mutually assisted seppuku....
Blue State:
So in your world, anointing a candidate is good, but letting voters decide (ya know "democracy") is suicide.
Gotcha.
So in your world, anointing a candidate is good, but letting voters decide (ya know "democracy") is suicide.
Gotcha.
1
Mussolini and Hitler both rose through democracy. Majority rule can create tyranny; a lynch mob is a good example of that.
1
Well, it's good to know that he's good for something.
And, I'm not even being sarcastic.
And, I'm not even being sarcastic.
6
The Republican Party reminds me of The Hydra of Lerna (see Hercules' 2nd labor...). Its blood and very breath were deadly poisons. Cut off one of its heads and others are generated. Hercules succeeded in killing The Hydra, with the aid of his nephew Ioalus, by cutting off and burning the heads until there were none to regenerate.
The lair of The Hydra was considered to be the entrance to The Underworld...
The lair of The Hydra was considered to be the entrance to The Underworld...
9
Medusa would be the counterpoint analogy for the Democratic party. Everything that looked to it turned to stone until Bernie held up a mirror-like shield and it saw its own reflection..
Who will save us from HRC, aka the Kraken?
Where is our Hercules to clean up that stable filled with horse excrement known as Congress?
Who will save us from HRC, aka the Kraken?
Where is our Hercules to clean up that stable filled with horse excrement known as Congress?
5
If I recall correctly, the story goes that Hercules got some blood of The Hydra on his tunic, blood that would eventually kill him...
Trump is a sleazebag, but the fact that the Republicans are now willingly going along with him as the nominee is even worse to see. The country absolutely, positively, should not have a shady businessman like him for a leader and if by some chance he is elected I would like to see the military remove him from office.
111
Even the "principled conservatives". I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
2
S - I can't think of one single country in the whole world where a military coup has brought better government. It is astonishing that you would suggest this as a solution, and so far 44 people agree with you. Which general do you think should lead the country or decide who to replace Trump with?
2
As a retired military person, I think I can say that won't happen, and a military junta would even be worse than some Republican's craving for a fundamentalist theocracy.
1
This excellent history doesn't reflect on how our country can be governed if the Republicans are in terrible disarray ... yet remain in control of Congress.
We have the anomaly of a party that does not represent the majority of Americans, and is deeply factionalized and bursting apart, being in control of Congress and rather likely to remain so ... due to two factors:
* gerrymandering, and
* it seems as though many voters want a president with "big ideas" and yet also want a Congress that exists to do nothing except say "no" and fight for local pork.
The irony of the situation is that a great many Republican office holders want Trump to lose -- they and their party will be better off if he does. Only a few will say it, but it's the truth.
The Republican party may end up being "super-whigs" ... hanging on a long time as nothing more than that "party of no."
I think our nation and the Republicans are in terrible trouble if Trump is elected -- he is a Berlusconi-like neo-fascist, the most remarkably ill-prepared and unthinking candidate we have seen in more than a generation. The last serious insurgent was George Wallace, before his epiphany. Whatever you think of his pro-segregation platform he was clearly far more qualified and capable than Trump.
Basically Trump is Wallace-lite ... with a whole lot less attention span. 11-year-olds talk like Trump, and they know all the dirty words, and have his pubescent sexual disgusts.
We have the anomaly of a party that does not represent the majority of Americans, and is deeply factionalized and bursting apart, being in control of Congress and rather likely to remain so ... due to two factors:
* gerrymandering, and
* it seems as though many voters want a president with "big ideas" and yet also want a Congress that exists to do nothing except say "no" and fight for local pork.
The irony of the situation is that a great many Republican office holders want Trump to lose -- they and their party will be better off if he does. Only a few will say it, but it's the truth.
The Republican party may end up being "super-whigs" ... hanging on a long time as nothing more than that "party of no."
I think our nation and the Republicans are in terrible trouble if Trump is elected -- he is a Berlusconi-like neo-fascist, the most remarkably ill-prepared and unthinking candidate we have seen in more than a generation. The last serious insurgent was George Wallace, before his epiphany. Whatever you think of his pro-segregation platform he was clearly far more qualified and capable than Trump.
Basically Trump is Wallace-lite ... with a whole lot less attention span. 11-year-olds talk like Trump, and they know all the dirty words, and have his pubescent sexual disgusts.
201
Interesting analogy. It is true that both Wallace and Trump are extreme opportunists, although at least Wallace had political experience.
2
The reason the GOP doesn't want Trump is NOT because he's a racist, a psychotic or a fascist. That goes with being a Republican. On the contrary--the GOP does not want Trump because he is too centrist--unwilling to mindlessly endorse Bush's genocide in Iraq or support future military catastrophes. Among dangerous lunatics of the GOP, Trump is probably the least worrisome.
41
The leaders of the Republican Party need a few years in the political wilderness to rethink who they are and what the GOP brings to American life. The 2016 election may give them that opportunity.
30
As one who extols equality and humility -- qualities lacking in Republican leaders -- I'm ecstatic about the GOP's implosion. What does it matter that Trump is "hijacking the party of Reagan?" Reagan, himself -- architect of the Decade of Greed ('80s) -- hijacked the GOP, and his slick baton passed to Dubya and his stuffed-shirt cronies who wasted trillions of dollars on the Iraq War. Narcissism has characterized the GOP since the days of Goldwater.
The clear difference between Republican Teddy Roosevelt and Republican Trump is that Teddy was a good, level-headed diplomat: a leader, not a louse.
The clear difference between Republican Teddy Roosevelt and Republican Trump is that Teddy was a good, level-headed diplomat: a leader, not a louse.
229
Actually it seems like the Republican party is begining to unite while the Democrat party is being torn apart. Violence and threats amongst Democrats and the candidates they support is worse than anything that occurred between Republicans. The Dems are having a war between the left and the far left with no let up in sight.
Meanwhile, Trump is sitting back laughing while the Democrat Party implodes and his poll numbers against Clinton continue to rise.
Meanwhile, Trump is sitting back laughing while the Democrat Party implodes and his poll numbers against Clinton continue to rise.
54
Woah Nelly! Woaaaahhhhh....
Don't try to pull Democrats into that big red wood chipper Republicans built. The Democrats and Co. are more than happen to see them hop right on in.
Don't try to pull Democrats into that big red wood chipper Republicans built. The Democrats and Co. are more than happen to see them hop right on in.
1
"Violence and threats amongst Democrats...worst that anything that occurred between Republicans." Are you serious, Lar?
Or is your GOP allegiance so crusty that you've noticed none of the continuous CHILDISH behavior displayed by MOST of the original 17 GOP presidential candidates?
Or is your GOP allegiance so crusty that you've noticed none of the continuous CHILDISH behavior displayed by MOST of the original 17 GOP presidential candidates?
7
Here is my comment from an earlier post, slightly revised: If by united, you mean the GOP will fall in line with the nominee, I think you missed the larger point. Of course, the party will back its nominee. Not to do so would be political suicide. But the point of the article rests in the ideas of Trump and how they don't particularly fit well with the larger GOP.
I'd pay a lot of money to charity to see DT in an elephant costume like the one pictured!
When he loses... And the GOP is in tatters.
When he loses... And the GOP is in tatters.
23
Wow! great article. Sweeping in its scope and very well written. Thanks
17
An interesting, but thoroughly Liberal Democratic retelling of events; especially recent events.
The Democatic Party lost its grip in the mid-sixties due to its own internal division regarding segregation, Vietnam war, as well as other social issues around women's issues. He conveniently forgets to mention that George Wallace was a Democrat, President Johnson escalated Vietnam.
Republicans gained power by capturing defectors via Nixon's "Silent Majority" theme, while Democrats cratered with the McGovern's crushing defeat in 1972. US had Republican presidents for all but 4 years between 1968 and 1992. Reagan was but the high watermark, but was neither the catalyst nor the downfall of the Republicans. The Democrats were reduced to a coalition of core union supporters allied with anti-segregationists.
Bill Clinton rebuilt a centrist Democratic party by espousing moderate economic and social policies, while the Republicans increasingly became a party devoted to conservative social policies allied with Libertarian economics.
Today, we are seeing the potential breakup of the Republican party as social conservatives see their economic situation worsen and free-marketers see social conservatives become more anti-free market.
Meanwhile Democrats battle between anti-free market social liberals and pro-free market social liberals.
"May you live in interesting times" as the old Chinese proverb goes....
The Democatic Party lost its grip in the mid-sixties due to its own internal division regarding segregation, Vietnam war, as well as other social issues around women's issues. He conveniently forgets to mention that George Wallace was a Democrat, President Johnson escalated Vietnam.
Republicans gained power by capturing defectors via Nixon's "Silent Majority" theme, while Democrats cratered with the McGovern's crushing defeat in 1972. US had Republican presidents for all but 4 years between 1968 and 1992. Reagan was but the high watermark, but was neither the catalyst nor the downfall of the Republicans. The Democrats were reduced to a coalition of core union supporters allied with anti-segregationists.
Bill Clinton rebuilt a centrist Democratic party by espousing moderate economic and social policies, while the Republicans increasingly became a party devoted to conservative social policies allied with Libertarian economics.
Today, we are seeing the potential breakup of the Republican party as social conservatives see their economic situation worsen and free-marketers see social conservatives become more anti-free market.
Meanwhile Democrats battle between anti-free market social liberals and pro-free market social liberals.
"May you live in interesting times" as the old Chinese proverb goes....
73
Republicans gained power indeed, but the "Silent Majority" was a subset of the larger segregationist Southern Strategy. The GOP openly wooed segregationists like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. Pro-life, welfare reform, war on drugs, and school choice slogans were thinly veiled appeals to the Southern white working class. The appeal to the "Silent Majority" was always about "those people" getting something they don't deserve.
46
" May you live in interesting times" is an old Chinese CURSE!
10
Nafta is moderate? Deregulating Wall Street was moderate?
Only in a Republican hellscape.
Only in a Republican hellscape.
7
As long as the Democrats put up candidates like Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Republican Party will remain viable and united at election time. They may not like each other at times, but that is nothing compared to their dislike of the "others".
3
And the operative word is . . . "others". As in "not like us".
7
Dear Padfoot -- In case you may have forgotten, Democrat Barack Obama WON the Presidency. And come November, Democrat Hillary Clinton will WIN the Presidency. Given the Republican Party's propensity lately to lose presidential elections, who cares how united it is at election time.
8
I never said they would win, just that they would be united.
Obviously, this piece was written to the approval of HRC. There the narrative is to blame the GOP for all ills. This is a convenient excuse since the GOP and Democrats share most of the same donors.
When a politician wants to avoid action they reach into their playbook for answers: 1) study to death; 2) delay; 3) explain that there are no resources; and, 4) blame.
When a politician wants to avoid action they reach into their playbook for answers: 1) study to death; 2) delay; 3) explain that there are no resources; and, 4) blame.
5
Fascinating read - please who dont learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.
Historian is an easier job; it is easier to "analyze" things decades after they happened. It is very much more difficult to forecast things before they happen, and making sense of things as they are happening real time. Right now, we are in a tremendous flux. Yes, GOP is in a lot of turmoil but so are the democrats. We have a wing of the party supporting Sanders, who are very angry and refusing to support Hillary. Likewise, establishment GOP is falling in line behind Trump, not because they like him, but because they are afraid of what might happen to them individually (not collectively), if they refuse to tow the party line; but at the same time, Trump's extreme views are so repulsive to so many people, that GOP might lose big chunks of electorate for generations.
Complicating all this is a changing demographic which unless it reverses, will make whites a minority in a few decades, and internet and other communication media where any individual has a megaphone and can influence others, and new factions and interest groups can form in a matter of weeks and not decades.
Very tough to say how the country's party structure will look in a couple of decades from now
Complicating all this is a changing demographic which unless it reverses, will make whites a minority in a few decades, and internet and other communication media where any individual has a megaphone and can influence others, and new factions and interest groups can form in a matter of weeks and not decades.
Very tough to say how the country's party structure will look in a couple of decades from now
1
I hear illegal immigrants have sworn they’ll move to Canada if Trump is elected.
3
"I hear" sums up most conservative news these days.
8
Let's not forget to mention the rise of seductive, low effort thinking, conservative "news". We like to hear simple solutions to complex problems.
Man, I really dislike the conservative media.
Man, I really dislike the conservative media.
136
With the Washington Post's, MSNBC's, and CNN's, and NYT's coverage of the Bernie Sanders campaign, not loving the establishment coverage either.
3
As a wise man once said, complex problems do not have simple solutions. "Build a wall," "Bomb Syria," "Lower taxes," "Beat China" sound great but mean absolutely nothing.
1
I've just been reading a short biography by Gamaliel Bradford of Phineas T. Barnum. You could change the name to "Trump" and almost everything he writes would fit.
I suggest that anyone who wants to understand Trump should read the Bradford piece on Barnum.
The Republicans, if they are to survive the showmanship of Mr. Trump, will need to be willing to remain in the executive power wilderness for four more years. They will never be able to control a President Trump. But they will never be willing to give up the hope of controlling the executive branch for the good of the whole and for the future.
I suggest that anyone who wants to understand Trump should read the Bradford piece on Barnum.
The Republicans, if they are to survive the showmanship of Mr. Trump, will need to be willing to remain in the executive power wilderness for four more years. They will never be able to control a President Trump. But they will never be willing to give up the hope of controlling the executive branch for the good of the whole and for the future.
4
Mature societies admit their mistakes. We are not there yet. Racism, worship of money and those that have it, self-righteous religious zealots that speak of freedom yet constantly infringe on the dignity and personal rights of others -- these are yet to be forthrightly debated in this country.
I can't help but think Trump supporters hate America, or, at least the version of it carved on the base of the Statue of Liberty.
I can't help but think Trump supporters hate America, or, at least the version of it carved on the base of the Statue of Liberty.
9
Name a "mature" society.
Never seen one yet.
Never seen one yet.
1
Germany after WWII? (But not Japan.)
Germany? Why? What criteria?
Environmentalists in Colorado follow a similar pattern. Before moving into the newly developing slurbs in the foot hills west of Denver and Colorado Springs, the new arrivals are all for development. Two years later they become environmentalists as new developments began to surround them. So immigrants favor immigration for a generation or two and then turn into nativists.
4
The GOP won’t fragment. It is party over country..that is now the Republican mantra. The Republican Party is placing its bet on Donald Trump. They believe that the people in this country are too stupid, blind and hateful to care one bit about who Trump really is. They are putting their money on someone who has nothing but contempt for what our nation has fought and died for. Trump is their golden boy now, not by choice, but by virtue of sheer political incompetence. The Republican's best hope is that it is in fact the Democrats who fragment over the Sanders nomination bid.
86
Sanders supporters won't fragment. They will stay home.
More reason progressives need to start working on a new political party that truly represents environmentalists, workers, minorities, women, children, veterans, consumers, mentally ill, the poor...
You know the people both parties label "populists".
More reason progressives need to start working on a new political party that truly represents environmentalists, workers, minorities, women, children, veterans, consumers, mentally ill, the poor...
You know the people both parties label "populists".
4
@Nowak Staying home is voting for Trump. That is the definition of fragmentation.
5
they are right (no pun intended) the American people are too stupid, blind and hateful to care".
1
Spot on! Just as the elites of the Republican Party became enamored with power, globalization, and deregulation --all of them affirming of their own power and wealth-- so these very same elites became paternalistic and manipulative of the "crazies" and abetted their fury just as they thought they could control these mobs, feeding them at voting time, corralling them with pablum in the inter-years --but the demagogue, the wannabe dictator in waiting came along.
The test for American democracy is, will it continue with new relatively open parties regenerating (the Democratic party of old is also dying) or will neofascism assert itself?
Empires sometimes renew themselves, but also sometimes crash into the ground, guided by egomaniacs, their guiding principles burning in the pyre, with some --as always-- ringing the profits.
The test for American democracy is, will it continue with new relatively open parties regenerating (the Democratic party of old is also dying) or will neofascism assert itself?
Empires sometimes renew themselves, but also sometimes crash into the ground, guided by egomaniacs, their guiding principles burning in the pyre, with some --as always-- ringing the profits.
4
Not advocating a vote - but we are talking about *illegal* immigrants here (or undocumented if you want to use that phrase). It is not controversial to want to stop "unauthorized" (illegal) immigration.
1
Sure, but to stop unauthorized immigration, we'd need to go after those who employ the immigrants. But we wouldn't want to upset any campaign donors, would we? So it's easier (and better politics for Trump) to simply scapegoat the immigrants.
63
The 1924 law that drastically restricted immigration was, as Prof. Wilentz says, brought about by resurgent nativism. In that sense it can certainly be considered "controversial."
1
The people who dealt with overvalued mortgages, giving them out to anybody who could breathe, talking people into taking them out, bundling them into junk securities and peddling these around the world, foreclosing on homes without any real, honest chain of title, broke a lot of laws too. People who took out the mortgages often lost their homes and life savings and had their lives torpedoed, but none of the big guys went to jail. These were lawbreakers who hurt people, and who hurt us all.
It may be natural to want to stop, and even to punish, illegal immigration, but if this is higher on our list of priorities than going after the people who knowingly or negligently fed our recent big bubble, we need to have our heads examined.
It may be natural to want to stop, and even to punish, illegal immigration, but if this is higher on our list of priorities than going after the people who knowingly or negligently fed our recent big bubble, we need to have our heads examined.
4
Seems about right. Thank you Professor Wilentz.
3
The Republican party lost us when the social conservatives took over and trickle down economics became their platform. I agree that Mr. Trump took full advantage of Republican party failures.
184
The Republican party is broken, but not broken up. If the GOP were on the verge of extinction the party's elders and counselors would not be uniting behind Donald Trump. They've sent forth the rallying cry, as evidenced by John McCain's 180 to "support the party's nominee."
The Reagan presidency was a pox of cultural and racial politics and this divisive stew is what Trump is stirring. It must be a fulfilling broth, if not particularly tasty, because the GOP base hopped to his birther tune; they rewarded him with the nomination.
What should be clearly understood here is that the malcontented whites who swell the rank and file are not true Republicans, not in the way most people describe the historical profile (1860-1960) of patrician paternalism in that the private sector is all-wise and government a mere irritant. This small inconvenience worries not the significant racist element in the party. If Trump takes the party to the depths this fall, the soldiers will gravitate to another party that promises to deliver what he could not.
What emerges from a GOP disaster will find a field already tilled and seeded with nativism.
The Reagan presidency was a pox of cultural and racial politics and this divisive stew is what Trump is stirring. It must be a fulfilling broth, if not particularly tasty, because the GOP base hopped to his birther tune; they rewarded him with the nomination.
What should be clearly understood here is that the malcontented whites who swell the rank and file are not true Republicans, not in the way most people describe the historical profile (1860-1960) of patrician paternalism in that the private sector is all-wise and government a mere irritant. This small inconvenience worries not the significant racist element in the party. If Trump takes the party to the depths this fall, the soldiers will gravitate to another party that promises to deliver what he could not.
What emerges from a GOP disaster will find a field already tilled and seeded with nativism.
11