The Party of Reagan ...

How did conservatism go from where it was in the 80's with The Party of Reagan to where it is today?

I can't really call myself a true conservative, but I am definitely conservative-friendly. Every online political survey I've ever taken has labeled me somewhere right of center to varying degrees, but I find less and less alignment with our national conservative leaders.

I just read an opinion piece by conservative political commentator, Adam Kinzinger, on Why Republicans are turning against aid to Ukraine. Mr Kinzinger is a USAF veteran of Iraq & Afghanistan and was also a Republican member of Congress from 2011 through January of this year. In his piece he says:

Gone is the party of Reagan, which was steadfast in its stand against tyranny. In its place is rising a GOP that seems immune to the world’s need for American leadership and uninterested in the suffering of a country we should aid until the fight is over.

Obviously, Mr Kinzinger in his essay and I in my post here are talking about Ukraine and Russia. One is led by an authoritarian tyrant who invaded the other, a fledgling democracy trying to shed the systems and institutions put upon it after decades of Soviet rule.

The Party of Reagan would not have taken a nanosecond to decide who to support in this conflict. Sure, they would've approached Ukraine about cleaning up some things (which they are doing), but none of that would have deterred The Party of Reagan from supporting Ukraine to the successful end of this conflict.

So, to my conservative friends ... Help me understand the thinking here? And in your explanations, please avoid the words Trump and/or Biden. Both of them are short-term blips in the history of this great country and in the development of western civilization & democracy.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M Best Comment

@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.

This message was deleted by its author.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@SW-User Thank you for the kind words.

sarabee1995 · 31-35, F

@Burnley123 Thank you for this. You are one of the very few people who actually addressed my question.

I like your five points defining Reaganism and Thatcherism. While I can't personally get behind all of it, I definitely am a law and order person, I do believe most people should take greater responsibility for themselves, and I view individual liberties as sacrosanct.

But I have advocated for many years for a "United States of Europe" (was my senior thesis in undergrad) that would stand next to America on the world stage and help us be better. Today the only bar is that we need to be better than Russia or China, that's not a very high bar. A United Europe acting as one with European values standing next to America, not under us, would dramatically change the geopolitical landscape for the better.

Just the opinion of one American. 😌

This message was deleted by its author.

sarabee1995 · 31-35, F

@SW-User First, this is not 1939. Neither Europe nor the USA is in the same or even a similar position.

And, yes, I did write my senior thesis on the concept of greater political unification within the EU. I'm not sure how much of my country's early history you know, but after the American Revolution and before our Constitution we had a very weak political union under the Articles of Confederation.

It did not work. The individual States has too much power and the central government not enough. The States has their own militaries and negotiated individually with foreign governments. It was a mess. Much like Europe's political landscape today. So yes, I advocate for a strong EU with closer political unification and a European military under Brussels.

And when I say I want Europe standing shoulder-to-shoulder with America on the world stage and that I see that helping us be better, I don't mean just helping us look better. I mean be better. Imagine a world with four centers of power: Washington, Brussels, Moscow, Beijing. In that world, our standard for behavior would not be how we compare to China or Russia, but how we compare to Europe. I think that would be good for America and for the world.

This message was deleted by its author.

sarabee1995 · 31-35, F

@SW-User Wow. Do you always take such an aggressive and antagonistic stance when talking to someone online?

Okay, here goes...
1939 ... Yes, we were late to the party. Agreed. But upon joining is there any doubt that we committed our economy 100% to the war effort in Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, and in the Pacific? Yes, I'm aware of the tulips and Canada's special relationship with Holland. I've been to Ottawa and seen them in the spring. Keep in mind that Canada (and the entire Commonwealth) joined the war as one because they were all part of the Commonwealth.

Rather than debating each of your points, can I ask you a simple question? Here it is: Would you prefer for the US to pull out of Europe and NATO completely? Would you prefer if we pulled every last soldier, sailor, airman, and marine home? I ask because there are some Americans who wish for this. I am not among them. I am a civilian employee of the US Department of Defense and I'm in Europe on average twice a month working for European (and American) security.

I know you have many countries standing up on the world stage making voices heard, but today those voices are a cacophony of disjointed noise. What I advocate for is a unified, strong, and mighty Europe.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@SW-User Hey,

I appreciate your kind words yesterday but I need to let you know that Sara is a nice person. Calling her arrogant and delusional is a bit much, as well as being outright wrong. I don't actually agree with her on foreign policy and (as a leftist non-interventionist) I'm probably closer to your position on NATO etc. Though I do support arming Ukraine against Putin.

There are some Americans on this site who are jingoistic and badly informed about Europe. I really don't see Sara as that. Also , given her thesis, she would have had to do a lot of research into European politics.

Your World War 2 point is well wide of the mark. Yes, the US joined the war later but - at that stage - it was a European War. Throughout the early period, Britain was heavily dependent on American loans and supplies to stay in the conflict. Without that, we would have to sign a peace treaty with Hitler.

By all accounts (and I've read books on this) FDR wanted to join earlier but knew he could not get a vote past Congress. I don't even blame Americans for being sceptical about the need to get involved. America at the time had an isolationist foreign policy and the country persuading them to join the fight was the same nation that they fought a war of independence against. Remember, the holocaust had yet to begin at this point and was only really known about right at the end of the war. It was widely known that the NAZIs were anti-Semitic and evicting Jews from the country but not quite how bad things were.

From the perspective of an ordinary American, early WW2 was like WW1: an imperialist conflict from the old world on a different continent. At the time, this would not have been an unreasonable assumption.

Also, Sweden was neitral in WW2. You can argue that they had little choice due to the size of the country and proximity to Germany. However, it's a bit much to blame Americans for their country joining late when your country didn't join at all. ..

sarabee1995 · 31-35, F

@Burnley123 Thank you. I've known that we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, but I see you as one who believes in the concept of pluralistic democracy. If we cannot discuss our differences in a civil manner then how are we different from the autocratic regimes in the world. ❤️

This message was deleted by its author.

sarabee1995 · 31-35, F

@SW-User Wow. You don't give up. I think it best if we part ways. I wish you well. I've yet to visit your country but I'm a fan and plan to soon. 🙂