The Party of Reagan ...

@sarabee1995 @SW-User

OK, I feel under pressure now but here we go:

Firstly, political parties and their ideologies are subject to change. Sometimes they go through a generational change, like has happened in recent years with the Republicans. Reaganism itself was also a generational change and (like Thatcherism) ended the postwar consensus and spawned the neoliberal era. At the time, moderate Conservatives felt left out by Reagan and Thatcher because they did not support the rapid deregulation and financialization of the insurgents.

What Reaganism and Thatcherism kept for the right was:
1) Belief in law and order, including loyalty to state institutions.
2) Family values and Christian values.
3) Personal Repsonibilty.
4) Inividial liberty.
5) An interventionist foreign policy based on the idea of America as the shining beacon on the hill and with a responsibility (as the world's most powerful nation and bigger democracy) to spread enlightened values throughout the world.

I don't agree with all of this framing but I'm not talking about myself. Clearly, Trumpism is a departure from all of these points aesthetically and in some cases practically. As much as the man believes in anything at all, he is a hypocrite and evangelicals are happy to vote for a serial liar and womaniser.

Point 5) is the one that really relates to your post. Why do some Republicans want to defund Ukraine?

The short answer is that this new iteration of the right favours an isolationist foreign policy. A lot of US liberals think that it is because Trump likes Putin. Trump may admire Putin but he admires him as a fellow shyster and as a rival. He and any Republican would screw Putin in a heartbeat if they thought it was in their interests but they don't think that it is.

The Bush-era ideas of The Project for the New American Century don't make sense any more even in their own terms. It's not really possible for America to be the world's sole hegemon because of the rise of China and because of foreign policy failures. America is in relative decline and due to that, nationalism has turned inward.

Instead of arguing with the left about why America should invade countries, Republican voters are now saying that they are sick of being 'Europe's ATM machine.' As a Brit, I have had Trumpsters tell me that the US bailed us out during WW2. Though this is somewhat true, the US govt did this for its own interests, not charity. They didn't want one country dominating Europe and the Marshall Plan helped build much-needed markets for American exports. WW2 also paved the way for the dollar to be the world reserve currency and reduced France, Britain and Germany to mid-level powers. The emerging cold war meant that the US political establishment was incentivised to continue an interventionist foreign policy if it wanted to be a superpower (which it did!)

That was very much a tenant of Conservatism, even more than for the liberals but as I said, things have changed because America has changed.

Whatever the intellectual justifications for Conservatism, people tend to vote for Conservative parties for a range of reasons. Two consistent threads are nationalism and perceived self-interest.

Well, now that nationalism and perceived self-interest are best served by cutting funding to international endeavours. Also, a lot of 'Conservative' voters are motivated by fear and resentment. Someone else mentioned that Fox News and Talk Radio have played a big part in why the American right in particular is big on conspiracy theories and hyperbole. The War on Communism became the War on Terror is now the War on Woke. Al Queda is now Antifa. Its nationalism has turned inward, even with its bogeymen.

So now the Democrats and the old-school Republicans are the only ones left believing in the idea of America as an enlightened superpower and leader of the free world. Hence, why the Republicans have no interest in who wins between Russia and Ukraine.

Again, I should stress that I don't agree with the framing of everything I have written here. I am trying to observe what other people think and why, within their own terms.

I also think that I could have written this better but hey, you wanted my opinion and there it is.

The Reagan years weren't that great ...

Sure he was a charismatic man when he spoke but that administration wasn't great in many things for one thing ignoring the AIDs epidemic ...

A major reason why the GOP is currently uninterested in helping Ukraine is simply because their Great Leader doesn't like the country. Why is that? A number of reasons come to mind, but up there is because the current administration IS helping Ukraine.
Childish petulance...

My fellow Brit and all round solid political analyst @Burnley123, has used the word neoliberalism a couple of times in his comments. I’ll start by saying that I hate that word. There is nothing new (ie neo) about this ideology and, the only thing that’s free (ie liberal) about it, is freedom from consequence and responsibility. I prefer to call it by what it is ie Monetarism.

That’s the economic ideology that Milton Freidman espoused. That’s the ideology that was implemented by both Reagan in the USA and Thatcher in the UK.

What’s that got to do with Ukraine and the argument posited by @sarabee1995 I hear you ask.

Well, it’s true that both Reagan and Thatcher were anti-Russia. Or were they? They were, in fact, anti-USSR. Not the same thing as Putin’s Russia of the 21st century. It’s not even the same thing as what some suggest is Putin’s ultimate aspiration. No, Putin’s aspiration is the Imperial Russia of the Tsars.

For the last forty years or so, Russia has become the land of the oligarch. To the critical observer of global economics, this is more in-line with Monetarism than it is with anything else. Unfettered Capitalism where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class all but vanishes.

So I ask myself, what would Reagan and Thatcher do if they were in office today? Would they be the anti-USSR of old or, would they be no different to the Republicans of today?

I doubt that they would be as rabid as the MTG’s etc but, in my not so humble opinion, they would see the similarities between their Monetarist ideologies and Putin’s oligarch system and act accordingly.

One final point, it never ceases to baffle and amaze me that so many Americans bang on about Reagan as if he was some kind of saint. He was not! Thankfully, we Brits don’t see Thatcher in the same vein. Neither do we continue to espouse the imagined virtues of Monetarism. In fact, the last British PM who tried to resurrect this completely debunked economic system was Liz Truss. She was booted out in six weeks……….by the “Party of Thatcher”.

This is a long long answer. It is my opinion and is so because of my experience and I don't think I left anything out this is a long answer feel free to skip it. It is mostly factual and I will post those if you want if you want to delete or skip no problem let me know and I'll help. 😊

You are wise in your expression or question in that you show an open minded attitude. Personally I'm a straight line Democrat. In other words I wasn't fond of Hillary I figured her too be business as usual politician and Biden same thing it wasn't because of them I voted for them but you asked not to bring one of these guys up. I've been voting since I was 18. Kentucky and Georgia were the only two states to let 18 year olds vote in 1970. One other allowed 19 year olds to vote. Other states lowered drinking ages theory being every male 18 or over was subject to get drafted and die for his country halfway around the world in some stinking jungle or Rice party I was influenced by my father. That the Dems were for the working man and the Republicans were for the wealthy. He did say if you start making 6 figures I can understand you voting Republican. 100k a year then it's like a750k job today. So I'm validating my knowledge of politics since the 60s hopefully.
I got out of the marines in 73.i was off the coast of Vietnam at the time the treaty kicked and same day we left. Less than two months after that I'm sitting at home like a bunch of other guys and tons of refugees looking for work watching Nixon resign and the installation of the only president that wasn't voted in. Good took Agnew's place he had to resign. Then Nixon had to and then fired had to step up. Then we had Jimmy Carter. A man of faith but never used it to gain office or to imply he was religious even though he was he never pushed it. Then Reagan comes along. He's a tad bit uppity. Doesn't seem to care much unless you are a King or Prince , movie star or maybe have 1 million liquid in your account. He won the election quite easily. Carter told everyone he was not going to stump or waste time with campaigning because he was busy trying to get the hostages home. Poor thing was just too honest for the job of president
But not Reagan while Carter is busy negotiating Reagan was asking the Italians to not release the hostages before the election so it wouldn't look like Jimmy Carter did any good there. He has his sidekick Oliver North making deals with the Contras in central America he was selling influence from the White House because it was against the law to deal with the Contras who needed money then he sneaks behind everyone's back and makes a deal with Iran to get them a bunch of weapons if they send money to the Contras. Iran just overthrew their government that was friendly to the US. And yes like most friendly governments from little countries like Iran Vietnam Afghanistan Iraq the friendly government was crooked or cruel or both.
So partly due to Jimmy not campaigning and looking like he could not negotiate well and the back stabbing illegal stuff Reagan gets in easy. First bragging point was there is wine at the white h house again. Anyway Jimmy has the hostages crisis, the oil embargo, leftover stuff from Nam and managed to win the novel peace prize for negotiating a peace between Israel and Egypt. Reagan ten involved the the oxymoronic term moral majority, which was neither. His new idea of the trickle down effect rolled a lot of people then. There's no such thing as trickle down effect. It's sticky a tax break for the wealthy. So after 8 years of Reaganomics the country is is going into recession maybe even depression George read my lips Bush comes sweating no new taxes but Reagan gave away so much revenue from the wealthy he had to put some taxes back on and you know who pays taxes. The worker guy. Btw the iron curtain or the USSR did not fall because of anything Reagan did. Trust me they were not afraid of Reagan and they knew at the time Russia was as powerful as the US military. They were failing anyway as most one party governments do. Clinton came in after Bush and got us out of recession and actually put the US in the black. He had a surplus of money in the bank. Then Bush Jr and Cheney gave that away started a couple of wars and left the US in recession again they had to go to the supreme Court to win the election. First rain the hanging chads bs in Florida. Guess who was governor? George's brother Jeb Bush stopped the the news after it was announced that the Dems took FLA. Then the bush he had to go to court the second time because of shady dealings. Then Obama he comes in inquiring 2 wars, a recession, the auto business failing, banks failing and still managed to find a way everyone could afford insurance to help so the drain on welfare and depending on the government to pay doctor bills. That s was a Republican idea at first but Obama made it work the the republicans being close for agree with OConnell to vote against anything Obama tried to get through on his agenda so Obama has to do so this with a hostile Congress. The guy that lost the last presidential election just showed everyone how to screw people right to their face and make them believe it. Sorry I had to say that . I'm going to the top of my answer and warn you how long and opinionated it is.

It is very clearly because they view Ukraine as puppets of the Democrat party. It's not the Republicans being anti-Ukraine, it's very specifically the MAGA wing.

It is no secret that Putin gave Trump a good deal of support, and no I am not talking illegally. Trump in turn was a big fan of Putin. You could see it in his presidential attitudes.

During his campaign, he wanted Ukraine to make statements and investigate Hunter Biden and find "corruption" in the Biden family that he could use to his advantage during the election. They did not help him.

Donald Trump is extremely vindictive, and thus spread the narrative that Ukraine was in bed with Biden and democrats. From there, the QAnon engine ran with it to punish Ukraine. Conspiracy theories cooked up by Russia and spread through Russian friendly media about the US funding democracy-supporting programs in the nation became a narrative about how the US funded riots and bloody protests and ultimately led a coup in the nation were resurrected and blasted to the forefront of social media. Look up the name Victoria Nuland and you'll see plenty of information regarding the conspiracy theories. If one doesn't fact check it, it can be convincing. The existence of that neo-nazi group in their military, the Azov battalion was blown up into the narrative that the Ukraine is now a nazi state.

Take a close look at which Republicans and conservatives support Ukraine and which ones want to either stay out of it or support Russia. You'll find a lot of the Ukraine supporters are the ones trying to pull the party back away from Trump. A lot of the Russia supporters are pro-Trump. And a lot of the neutral folks either lean Trump or just generally don't care.

Weirdly, I've kind of become a student of the right and I'm interested in how it had been changing,

Not my Rodeo (or village fair 😇) but my short answer would be that the changes in the modern right don't make sense ideologically or technically but they do make sense psychologically if you look at people and why they have changed.

The short answer is that (nearly) all politicians are whores who will go in whatever direction they think will get them elected and re-elected, while (of course) enriching themselves in the process.

True conservatives have been traditionalists. The United States has had some very ugly "traditions" (for certain groups, that is). Unfortunately, that’s the starting point. So some conservatives are basically returning to their more extremist roots. 😞

The current situation was always the ultimate goal of the Party of Reagan in the '80s, and conservatives in general for decades before that.

I recall clearly the GOP convention in Detroit where negotiations between Reagan and Ford took place to try to engineer a "dream" ticket to run for President and Vice President.. As it turns out Regan was a great communicator and a really nice guy but a lousy president, National debt skyrocketed under his tax cuts and massive military spending... Did it cripple the Soviet Union? Yes but it also has imperilled America as those tax cuts for the wealthy have never been addressed or replaced and the fact is that Americans are dramatically under taxed.... and underspent socially..... Instead of deifying Regan I would study Dwight D Eisenhower's administration if you wanted to have an economic platform that actually WORKS for America - long term.. and in it top marginal taxation exceeded NINETY percent.. Eisenhower believed that there was a MAXIUM income that was permissible and NO MORE... fact is that the man was a visionary and ultimately correct.. He was not simply a great general - he was truly a great president.. but the whack jobs that are in charge of the GOP today - well Ike could never be A GOP president today... that is how far the principles of conservatism have drifted and been corrupted from the base line and success of the Eisenhower administration.. History poses interesting contrasts ... its NOT just politics - it has to be mixed with economic realities and FACTS...

I'm not sure true conservatives have changed their view, but I do feel that since 2016 the Republican party is better characterized as a populist party than a conservative party. It is increasingly difficult to find true conservatives in American politics anymore. Liz Cheney, Paul Ryan, and Mitt Romney probably qualify.

Alot of conservative Christians idolize Reagan. I think Reagan is more mythos to some then a real person. Perhaps because of how much of a populist he was among the niche that was conservatism then. He was a symbol of hope that their party could use state rights to gain lots and lots of power, and change America to suit their vision, nevermind the rest of the people living here.

I personally don't understand admiring a smiling pig who ran on Christian ideals, and racist policies and reforms on a platform of state's rights over federal rights and "law and order" which has resulted in a lot more tyranny and oppression for the American people in my opinion.

Reagan wanted America great again, not unlike Trump's platform.

As for his Reagan doctrine and stance against tyranny...well that's largely questionable when the man was a deeply flawed individual who supported aparteid in South Africa but also wanted to support countries overthrowing communism.

I think conservatives are right on brand. Very little has changed except instead of smiling, conservatives bang on about being victims.

Also alot of conservatives didn't always support Reagan's policies. They often didn't want to send aid to others either. They saw it as against their own self interest. Much the same as now.

I think most people are moderates. I think there are about 10% right wing nut jobs and about 10% left wing nut jobs and the 80% in the middle are moderates. But, that 80% don't really worry about things till if affects them personally. When Reagan was elected voter turnout was 53 and 54% in 1980 and 1984. Just over half of eligible voters, voter turnout is still around 50%, only half of the country's voters are showing up. In 2020, the official count was 66%. Apathy is the problem, and single issue voters.

When things like Ukraine come up, before we spend billions on another country, maybe we should try to fix things in America first. Reagan in the cold war, JFK during the Cuban missile crisis, we should elect leaders who aren't afraid to draw a line in the sand. The US has been a global police force since WW2, it is time to let other countries work things out for themselves. Weak leaders allow things to happen like this. Serbia, Ukraine, why should American taxpayers protect the world with tax dollars and the blood of the military when there isn't a threat to this country?

[media=https://youtu.be/IlkXQm7tSCY]

I honestly despise reagan and everything about him and thatcher to boot. Dude gets way too much credit for not doing much of anything like everyones like WE ADORE HIM HE CUT TAXES and it's like who's taxes precisely? those who least needed a tax cut in the first place? First of all he tried but then went too far and ended up having to reversse course and by the time it was all over with all that really changed was the tax burden shifted from those with the deepest pockets to those least able to actually paay for anything and while they didn't literally legalize povertiy the system punished you even more just for being low income after reagan was done with this place and plus of the good times Give me 3 Trillion on credit i'll Show this country a good time, but leave them with the bills just like he did. all reagan really did was shift the tax burden, he certainly didn't downsize government or curb spending at all, he simply changed who hhad to pay for it all.\

Governemnt isn't the problem, people who think it is the problem, are the problem.

he was one of a kind we need again so much

Ever heard of the Overton window? The same question needs to be asked of the other side. What happened to the democrats of JFK?

I too have self identified as a conservative for my adult life. That being said, I could never vote for Republicans (at least at the national level) until a few things are corrected. Trump is the top of that list. Also the attack on woman's rights, body autonomy, and the LGBTQ community. Between the abortion laws and trans laws, all that party cares about is what's between your legs and in your bed. I don't think I've changed as much as they have.

it was Regan, that opened the republican party to evangelical Christianity. till then they were marginalized.
and now evangelicals are being taken over themselves by a lot of well exclusionary things
the conversion to "Limbaughism: has been heavily funded by so called right money

do look into
the Powell memorandum for the road map that lead to the current party

Neoliberalism has one direction, and it's downwards.

Putin would have never invaded Ukraine if Ronald Reagan were president .

The government of Ukraine is corrupt and involved in a scheme with our president and his son. While we send billions to the Ukraine we have homeless veterans and hungry homeless children living on the street in the US . America and Americans come first . As for the change in conservatism, it still exists , but many of the elected Republicans are rinos and are part of the swamp and just as corrupt as their socialist counterparts.

Maybe if you were to become more informed than what CNN tells you you would have a much better grasp on world events. Quick question for you. Which leader Putin or Zelinski banned opposition parties, closed churches and shut won the press?

One needs to look a bit deeper than your description. I don't support Putin and think he's a thug, but he has an argument that should be heard. Unfortunately US censorship forbids to even discuss the war outside of a "Russia bad" mindset. I'm not going to run the whole thing down here mainly because I don't know what the truth actually is. There are a number of points worth looking at to determine their legitimacy outside of just the US government rhetoric that I no longer trust:

1. The eastward expansion of NATO was not supposed to happen. That is a threat to thug like Putin
2. Biolabs operating in Ukraine. The Russians built them, the US manages them now. What are they doing? Info censored, which is why it needs to be looked at
3. Presidential weakness allowed him to take Crimea. Same is true today which greatly reduces the deterrent
4. Land bridge to Crimea
5. This administration is clearly compromised and deep into the corruption Ukraine is famous for. More to see here as the onion unpeels itself.

Reagan would make an attempt to see the whole picture, not just the headlines.

With Jimmie Carter's 18% interest rates and Iran Hostage situation, people
didn't have much of a choice back then.

Reagan was a purely evil piece of garbage who did a lot to hurt this country. A second-rate actor with good speechwriters. Look at what he did, not what he said. He made it very clear only the wealhy mattered. It's been downhill ever since.

There are many factors. One major one is the role of right wing talk radio which is ratings driven so the more extreme opinions tend to get voiced. Moderate voices are driven out.

Then that became the base so you see the GOP now taking their cues from the extreme right. Throw in Fox and the internet and you have the right wing echo chamber where anything outside of it is "fake news."

Also, conservatives never were completely conservative, but note, Patrick Buchanan never took off. He was an old racist Nixonian. it was Gingrich and Palin who set the table, and then the "Tea Party."

Throw in the Electoral College, a weak Hillary Clinton, a fascist huckster, some luck, and wala!

Reaganomics broke the US economy and society.
He was a monster

It's my firm belief that Uncle Ronnie would puke on the heads of today's Republican Party.

years ago, most republicans were conservative; that's no longer the case. the republican super-pacs today are rinos/no better than democrats

real conservatives are sick to death of career politicians on both sides; neither have any intention of winning wars anymore (if we/the military had been allowed to do our jobs without all the political bullshit, afghanistan & iraq wouldn't have gone on for 20 years), politicians & elites make more money from starting wars than ending them.

all the time and effort we spend in afghanistan trying to destroy the taliban, and thanks to biden's fuckup, we left them better armed than when we started, and all we have to show for it are casualties...

if we maintain the status quo, Ukraine will be no different

Why do you think that most people want or should want their government to spend billions on helping a country like Ukraine? Because western democracy is so great? Even if it was, how does it benefit them?


No they aren't. Before 2014, the western media was distinctly aware of that too. Ukraine was seen as being corrupt, regressive, racist...what changed?

I've never been in favor of even Reagan-style conservatism, but I miss it. I miss it compared to the way these people are acting today. And I know you said to avoid words like Trump or Biden, but I think Trump was the catalyst. He might be a blip in the history books, but he has changed the way we view political discourse.

In many ways, this is similar to how political debates changed when Bill Clinton was running for president. Debates were no longer quite so formal. Candidates were allowed to interrupt one another with zingers and quips, and both Bill Clinton and George Bush took advantage of that new rule. Things got less civilized than, just as they suddenly got less civilized in 2016.

However, Trump didn't just suddenly create the mood. Folks on the right have felt like their voices aren't heard for a long time. And it's all well and good to say that they aren't heard because what they have to say isn't productive, but that's not the way they see it. And now, with Trump as their example, these people have decided that it's okay, not just to interrupt someone else's speech, but the shout over them, to call them degrading names, and to mock them until they get angry and leave before declaring victory.

They just needed someone to give them permission.

Reagan would not have given one red cent to Ukraine, because Zelwnskyy is corrupt. He jailed all of his opposition then nationalized all media, Zelenskyy is more of a dictator than a leader.

Maybe RFK, Jr. shall be elected soon.