If Trump loses the election, do you think the Republican Party might split up?
22-25, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BohemianBabe · M
My prediction is that they'll try to ditch and replace him like they did last time, but also like last time, he'll try to run again. When he finally dies, they'll start trying to rebrand, but that's going to be a long process. It'll take decades for the party to move away from Trumpism.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe How did the party try and ditch him? They could’ve literally voted for his impeachment which would’ve made his re-election impossible. Instead, they didn’t and here we are because a handful of Republican Senators weren’t willing to go down that road.
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH Yeah, they were too cowardly to vote against him in the impeachment. Instead, they just tried to quietly distance themselves from him. If journalists brought up Trump, they changed the subject to Ron DeSantis. He was going to be the replacement of Trump, and the future of the Republican Party. Well, we all remember how that worked out.
It's going to be the same thing if Trump loses again. Republicans don't have the spine to strongly condemn him, so they'll just meekly try to distance themselves once again, and once again it won't work.
It's going to be the same thing if Trump loses again. Republicans don't have the spine to strongly condemn him, so they'll just meekly try to distance themselves once again, and once again it won't work.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe Well, some Republicans officially supported DeSantis, no one said anything about not supporting Trump and then they all flipped when he waltzed through the primaries (minus Kinzinger, Cheney, Romney, Pence) and endorsed Trump. Including Nikki Haley. That‘s truly depressing because if not even Haley can capitalize on her primary voters to build an internal opposition, then who can?
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH That's why I think Trump will continue controlling the party if he loses. There just aren't enough Republicans willing to stand up to him. And it's not enough for Republicans to just say they're not voting because they don't like Trump. We need Republicans like Liz Cheney who will openly say that Trump is so bad, we need to vote for Harris-Walz.
I really hope this is a wake up call for everyone, including people who don't live in America. Conservatism as an ideology is authoritarian, which is why the Right so easily embraces "strongmen" Fascists.
I really hope this is a wake up call for everyone, including people who don't live in America. Conservatism as an ideology is authoritarian, which is why the Right so easily embraces "strongmen" Fascists.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe Cheney’s speech at a Harris event was a relief. I hope she and my neoconservative friends around Bill Kristol (and the Bulwark) can encourage others like Pence and Romney to actually stop hedging their bets and come out forcefully in favor of democracy, freedom and constitutionalism e.g Harris-Walz.
However, conservatism isn’t in and of itself authoritarian. Nor is Trump a conservative. In the end, it depends on what any particular group of conservatives tries to conserve.
However, conservatism isn’t in and of itself authoritarian. Nor is Trump a conservative. In the end, it depends on what any particular group of conservatives tries to conserve.
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH Conservatism as an ideology and a movement was founded after the French Revolution by people who were against the revolution because they were against democracy and legal egalitarianism. Basically, they wanted to maintain the strict hierarchy that comes with autocratic rule. They founded Conservatism as a way to maintain aristocratic hierarchy through Capitalism, within the constrains of democratic government. So it was Authoritarianism within a democratic framework. That's why the Right was against freeing the slaves, ending segregation, allowing women to vote, gay marriage, and now they're against trans rights. Conservatives have always been against any pro-freedom movement.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe That‘s nonsense. Conservatism is not one movement. It‘s not like liberalism or socialism. It takes many shapes and forms depending on the country and the point in time. It wasn’t founded in response to the French Revolution either. Conservatism is much older than that. The British Conservatives became a pro-freedom party and so did the Republicans from Eisenhower to Bush 43.
If you define conservatism as defending core civil liberties and a liberal constitution then it becomes a liberal form of conservatism. However, if you want to conserve certain anti-liberal traditions such as slavery or a monarchy then you‘re an anti-liberal conservative. Trump is neither. He‘s just a populist.
If you define conservatism as defending core civil liberties and a liberal constitution then it becomes a liberal form of conservatism. However, if you want to conserve certain anti-liberal traditions such as slavery or a monarchy then you‘re an anti-liberal conservative. Trump is neither. He‘s just a populist.
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH The current form of political Conservatism absolutely started as a response to the French Revolution. Maybe there were people before that who used the word in their politics, but I'm talking about the movement that led up to the modern period of Conservatism.
This period includes Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who were definitely not pro-freedom.
Granted, none of the previous Republicans were nearly as bad as Trump, who is constantly attacking democracy. Reagan and Nixon weren't trying to end our democracy. However, they were against expanding freedom, and they used economics to restrain freedom, which is what Conservatism has always been. Trumpism is a break from Conservatism in that it's just Fascism, but the reason the Right has so easily shifted to Fascism is because Fascism and Conservatism are both authoritarian in philosophy. It's similar to how Benito Mussolini and Joseph Goebbels were originally Tankies who easily switched to Fascism.
so did the Republicans from Eisenhower to Bush 43.
This period includes Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who were definitely not pro-freedom.
Granted, none of the previous Republicans were nearly as bad as Trump, who is constantly attacking democracy. Reagan and Nixon weren't trying to end our democracy. However, they were against expanding freedom, and they used economics to restrain freedom, which is what Conservatism has always been. Trumpism is a break from Conservatism in that it's just Fascism, but the reason the Right has so easily shifted to Fascism is because Fascism and Conservatism are both authoritarian in philosophy. It's similar to how Benito Mussolini and Joseph Goebbels were originally Tankies who easily switched to Fascism.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe The conservative Tory party in the Uk and the conservative Whigs in the US emerged before the French Revolution. There‘s no coherent global conservative movement. There are liberal and anti-liberal conservatives. And you‘re completely off on Reagan. Nixon, however, was more complicated. Your idea of how more economic freedom which Reagan worked towards, led to less economic freedom is schizophrenic. We won’t agree on that point in the slightest.
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH By Reagan massively deregulating industries, he gave the rich much more power over the workers. He also made the working-class poorer with trickle down economics, which was entirely the point.
Reagan is often held up as a symbol of freedom because he was so against the Soviet Union. But if you look at his actual policies, everything he did made Americans less free, more poor.
The French Revolution is generally agreed to have ended in 1799. That was before the Whigs and the Tories.
Reagan is often held up as a symbol of freedom because he was so against the Soviet Union. But if you look at his actual policies, everything he did made Americans less free, more poor.
The French Revolution is generally agreed to have ended in 1799. That was before the Whigs and the Tories.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe No. He stimulated considerable GDP growth and made the US more prosperous. He helped bring an end to the stagflationary period that actually hurt the poorest the most during the 1970s.
Companies weren’t more powerful in the 1980s than in the 1970s, businesses were now just being run more efficiently with less interference from the government.
In any case, his deregulatory policies which increased freedom for all market participants were initiated by Jimmy Carter and continued by Bill Clinton. Sectoral deregulation is essential. It is a cost-neutral, disinflationary tool to increase growth and efficiency throughout the entire economy. It‘s done by boosting competition and empowering market mechanisms to determine real prices and valuations.
As an example, thanks to his bus deregulation, more people were allowed to professionally drive buses than before and consumers benefited from lower prices.
His economic agenda is exactly what made him a pro-economic freedom President domestically.
Companies weren’t more powerful in the 1980s than in the 1970s, businesses were now just being run more efficiently with less interference from the government.
In any case, his deregulatory policies which increased freedom for all market participants were initiated by Jimmy Carter and continued by Bill Clinton. Sectoral deregulation is essential. It is a cost-neutral, disinflationary tool to increase growth and efficiency throughout the entire economy. It‘s done by boosting competition and empowering market mechanisms to determine real prices and valuations.
As an example, thanks to his bus deregulation, more people were allowed to professionally drive buses than before and consumers benefited from lower prices.
His economic agenda is exactly what made him a pro-economic freedom President domestically.
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH There's a difference between overall GDP, and the GDP per capita. China has a huge GDP, but the average worker is poor.
Reagan increased freedom for the owners of industry. Workers are market participants, but they had less freedom in the workplace because of the deregulation and crushing of unions. And this is what I mean when I say Conservatives want to maintain the hierarchy of the aristocracy. The people at the top have the wealth and make the rules, the people at the bottom have nearly nothing.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were economically conservative, especially Clinton, he was an awful president. But part of the reason for that is because Reagan shifted the Overton Window to the far Right.
Deregulation isn't always bad. There are some cities where kids can't run a lemonade stand because they're required to have fire extinguishers. That's a case where the regulations should be lifted, because the regulations are insane.
However, Reagan didn't only lift the bad regulations. He deregulated as much as he could in order to help big corporations have near dictator control over the workers. I'd compare it to how some laws should be repealed, but repealing ALL laws would be a disaster.
Reagan increased freedom for the owners of industry. Workers are market participants, but they had less freedom in the workplace because of the deregulation and crushing of unions. And this is what I mean when I say Conservatives want to maintain the hierarchy of the aristocracy. The people at the top have the wealth and make the rules, the people at the bottom have nearly nothing.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were economically conservative, especially Clinton, he was an awful president. But part of the reason for that is because Reagan shifted the Overton Window to the far Right.
As an example, thanks to his bus deregulation, more people were allowed to professionally drive buses than before and consumers benefited from lower prices
Deregulation isn't always bad. There are some cities where kids can't run a lemonade stand because they're required to have fire extinguishers. That's a case where the regulations should be lifted, because the regulations are insane.
However, Reagan didn't only lift the bad regulations. He deregulated as much as he could in order to help big corporations have near dictator control over the workers. I'd compare it to how some laws should be repealed, but repealing ALL laws would be a disaster.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe
Exactly, and GDP/per capita growth was up rapidly during the 1980s under Reagan compared to the disappointing 1970s. Unemployment was down which, again, helps the poorest the most.
I‘m not arguing about whether or not neoliberalism is far superior to mixed economies or social democracy. Although I‘d love to because it evidently is. The question is merely about that of economic freedom, and when restrictions fall, taxes go down then economic freedom axiomatically goes up. You can bemoan that because it helps industry, or makes rich people richer or because it hurts unions when non-unionized individuals have now a real shot at competing in certain sectors of the economy. But there‘s no doubt that it increases opportunities and the rights of people by helping them to do more of what they‘d like to do.
You have a cartoonishly Marxist view on deregulation and on Reagan. It‘s sad that basic economic literacy eludes you. But I‘m not interested in teaching you econ 101. It would take too long, I‘m just telling you that less interference from the state might not create your desired outcomes but it factually increases the possibilities, flexibility and options for all economic participants. Investors, consumers, employees and employers alike.
There's a difference between overall GDP, and the GDP per capita. China has a huge GDP, but the average worker is poor.
Exactly, and GDP/per capita growth was up rapidly during the 1980s under Reagan compared to the disappointing 1970s. Unemployment was down which, again, helps the poorest the most.
I‘m not arguing about whether or not neoliberalism is far superior to mixed economies or social democracy. Although I‘d love to because it evidently is. The question is merely about that of economic freedom, and when restrictions fall, taxes go down then economic freedom axiomatically goes up. You can bemoan that because it helps industry, or makes rich people richer or because it hurts unions when non-unionized individuals have now a real shot at competing in certain sectors of the economy. But there‘s no doubt that it increases opportunities and the rights of people by helping them to do more of what they‘d like to do.
You have a cartoonishly Marxist view on deregulation and on Reagan. It‘s sad that basic economic literacy eludes you. But I‘m not interested in teaching you econ 101. It would take too long, I‘m just telling you that less interference from the state might not create your desired outcomes but it factually increases the possibilities, flexibility and options for all economic participants. Investors, consumers, employees and employers alike.
BohemianBabe · M
@CedricH
So this is a huge mistake people make. It's not enough to just look at who is in office. You also have to look at the policies that caused whatever is happening now.
It's like when Trump says we had record highs when he was president, but now inflation is out of control. Sure, that's technically true. But we had record highs because Trump inherited Obama's economy, then he destroyed it, and then he passed it to Biden. Trump is one of the reasons inflation got so bad.
It's the same thing with Reagan. Don't just look at how things were when he was president, look at the results of his policies. Trickle down economics objectively caused more poverty. Deregulation of the prison industry caused more poverty. Deregulation of colleges cause the student loan crisis.
Conservative Capitalism doesn't just make rich people richer. It also makes poor people poorer, and gives them less worker's rights. Basically, it gatekeeps freedom behind wealth. You can say it's pro-freedom that now a rich business-owner can do whatever they want, but it's not pro-freedom for the workers who now have less rights and less money.
Exactly, and GDP/per capita growth was up rapidly during the 1980s under Reagan compared to the disappointing 1970s. Unemployment was down which, again, helps the poorest the most.
So this is a huge mistake people make. It's not enough to just look at who is in office. You also have to look at the policies that caused whatever is happening now.
It's like when Trump says we had record highs when he was president, but now inflation is out of control. Sure, that's technically true. But we had record highs because Trump inherited Obama's economy, then he destroyed it, and then he passed it to Biden. Trump is one of the reasons inflation got so bad.
It's the same thing with Reagan. Don't just look at how things were when he was president, look at the results of his policies. Trickle down economics objectively caused more poverty. Deregulation of the prison industry caused more poverty. Deregulation of colleges cause the student loan crisis.
You can bemoan that because it helps industry, or makes rich people richer or because it hurts unions when non-unionized individuals have no a shot at competing in certain sectors of the economy. But there‘s no doubt that it increases opportunities and rights of people to do economically.
Conservative Capitalism doesn't just make rich people richer. It also makes poor people poorer, and gives them less worker's rights. Basically, it gatekeeps freedom behind wealth. You can say it's pro-freedom that now a rich business-owner can do whatever they want, but it's not pro-freedom for the workers who now have less rights and less money.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@BohemianBabe Reagan‘s policies were precisely what made the difference and turned the country around. More trade, less regulation, lower taxes and weaker unions structurally improved US competitiveness, growth and prosperity. Nowadays, and even under Reagan poverty has become a useless term because people talk about relative poverty. And relative poverty automatically rises when some people are more successful than others simply because they are better capable at using the economic freedom that‘s available to them.
Without deregulation, its implausible that so many kids would‘ve even gotten any loan in the first place. Which means lower quality education for them. Again! Economic freedom means the freedom to take risks, to make your own choices and to be more self-reliant. That means people now get the shot at first class higher education but they have to pay for it.
Without deregulation, its implausible that so many kids would‘ve even gotten any loan in the first place. Which means lower quality education for them. Again! Economic freedom means the freedom to take risks, to make your own choices and to be more self-reliant. That means people now get the shot at first class higher education but they have to pay for it.