Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 16
If you got out your DeLorean and grabbed Ronnie [Reagan] out of the year 1985 and dropped him in the year 2021, he would have a tough time understanding the modern GOP. He might even be repulsed. However, if he had been alive this whole time, and had been along for the ride, shifting rightward by degrees, it is plausible that he'd be right there with Trump.

Anyhow, because this has been a decades-long process, and because many cooks have contributed to this particular broth, narrowing it down to one is a bit reductionist. However, if you insisted, we would pick...Rush Limbaugh. He was one of the few constants from 1980 to his passing this year, and his appetite for propaganda, for hateful rhetoric, for conspiratorial thinking, and for putting performance ahead of governance was present the whole time. The silver medal, meanwhile, goes to Roger Ailes, and the bronze to Newt Gingrich.


https://electoral-vote.com//
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'd give the Faux News ensemble under Ailes the prize for the degradation of our political discourse, annihilation of the truth, and the destruction of our democracy. Rush, (wish there was an eternal hell so he could be rotting in it) comes in 2nd.

Fox is a metastasizing cancer.

regards,
Kris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Rush, (wish there was an eternal hell so he could be rotting in it) comes in 2nd.

Nope.

Rush was spewing his nonsense and hatred more that a decade before FOX was even formed.

He established the “smash mouth” template. Gingrich and FOX merely saw that it worked and followed in Rush’s wake.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Limbaugh...Medal of Freedom? Bleeeccchhh! Disgusting. Surely there has never been anyone LESS deserving.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
While those are certainly valid points, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is also a reflection of trends that we've seen in a number of European countries as well.

Like the U.S., right-wing parties abroad have long been centered around pro-business issues and push-back against more left-wing economic issues - especially standing in contrast to Labour and Green parties. But in recent years, those parties have also started to realign around more "social" issues - particularly pushback against immigration and international connectedness, as right-leaning parties in Europe pushed back against refugees (both directly and culturally) and supported the very visible Brexit campaign. Like in the U.S., they've gotten more populist - organizing around the concept that the government has been seized by a corrupt and venal "Elite" (which in right-wing populism consists of technocrats, cultural and educational leaders, globalists, and those who reject the "traditional" values of the rural working classes). They're characterized by much stronger nationalism/nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment, rejection of international trade and finance, negative attitudes towards religious outgroups (especially Muslims), than the conservative parties (however named) in those countries typically had.

So while Fox and Rush and Newt and friends all had key roles in shaping the evolution of the GOP, it's also part of a wider trend. The growth of right-wing populism is explained, in part, as a response to global economic and cultural shifts that have taken place over the last several decades. It's not just limited to the U.S., and it's not just a product of individuals or institutions in the U.S. And the fact that right-wing populism is also well-established in Europe (and arguably came before right-wing populism in the U.S.) should give pause to U.S. progressives/liberals who think that they can be blunted by a more assertive economic safety net or changes in taxation policy. Or by changes in the media ecosystem, since one of the most dramatic successes of right-wing populism took place in the U.K. (the growth of UKIP and Brexit), which has one of the more tightly regulated broadcast and television regimes in the Western World when it comes to politics, and does not have anything like a Fox News or a Rush Limbaugh on the air.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
No. This is not about small government or state's rights over federal rights or conservative politics. If it were, then Republicans would be proposing legislation that addressed those issues instead of focusing only on how to cheat the majority out of election victories. Nothing about "Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya" has anything to do with immigration and international connectedness, for example. Boasting about grabbing women by the [redacted] has anything to do with pushing back against left-wing issues. Nothing about claiming Biden stole the election or an armed insurrection of the capital has anything to do with "traditional" values.

You seem determined to make excuses for a party that now lies as a matter of habit and works solely to suppress voting by minorities. This is a party that is morally bankrupt and an existential threat to our Democratic elections and Constitution. They may squeal about "traditional" values, but they are nothing but a lying, cheating minority.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. This is not about small government or state's rights over federal rights or conservative politics.

I didn't say it was.

I was pointing out the shift of conservative and right-leaning parties away from business-oriented parties, and towards nativist anti-immigrant right-wing "populist" parties, isn't limited to just the U.S. It's been happening all over the West. And the shift in Europe pre-dated the shift in the U.S., and took place in countries that have more tightly-regulated media (like the U.K.) and in countries that have much broader economic social safety nets (like most of Europe).

Right-wing parties have been changing everywhere, not just the U.S. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich certainly have had their role. But there are also broader factors that have shaped the GOP as well. And more distressingly, since the degradation of conservative/right-wing into ethno-nationalist "populist" movements has happened in lots of other countries that have better broadcast media and better economic safety nets, we shouldn't have too much confidence that improving those things in the U.S. will blunt that trend.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So while Fox and Rush and Newt and friends all had key roles in shaping the evolution of the GOP, it's also part of a wider trend. The growth of right-wing populism is explained, in part, as a response to global economic and cultural shifts that have taken place over the last several decades. It's not just limited to the U.S., and it's not just a product of individuals or institutions in the U.S. And the fact that right-wing populism is also well-established in Europe (and arguably came before right-wing populism in the U.S.) should give pause to U.S. progressives/liberals who think that they can be blunted by a more assertive economic safety net or changes in taxation policy. Or by changes in the media ecosystem, since one of the most dramatic successes of right-wing populism took place in the U.K. (the growth of UKIP and Brexit), which has one of the more tightly regulated broadcast and television regimes in the Western World when it comes to politics, and does not have anything like a Fox News or a Rush Limbaugh on the air

Albaby"


Indeed. 80% of it nailed. A record.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I was pointing out the shift of conservative and right-leaning parties away from business-oriented parties, and towards nativist anti-immigrant right-wing "populist" parties, isn't limited to just the U.S.

Okay. That's true. The motivation for change has been experienced globally. Globalization, the rise of China as a technical and military force, unhealthy concentrations of wealth with so few people, global environmental changes that are causing massive migrations of people all contribute to the fact that political parties and affiliations are changing.

But the motivation for change does not determine the specific shape political parties in the US will adapt because of those motivations. That is what disturbs many liberals in America today. While many would be comfortable debating specific proposals to address desires for conservative small government, states rights vs federal, right to choose vs right to birth, how to control and monitor immigration, white supremacy vs diversification of power and wealth, election procedures . . . no reasonable debate is possible when one side of the debate refuses to accept reality. Until that problem is solved . . . until both sides embrace the same basic facts, debate is futile. If we can ever get past the shameful lying, corruption, and embrace of authoritarian, anti-democratic practices, then we can start addressing the really tough issues that are getting ignored today. But there is no value in finding rationalizations for the American right's opposition to reality. Choosing lies over reality has no acceptable defense and ultimately cannot lead to solutions of any problems we face.

And more distressingly, since the degradation of conservative/right-wing into ethno-nationalist "populist" movements has happened in lots of other countries that have better broadcast media and better economic safety nets, we shouldn't have too much confidence that improving those things in the U.S. will blunt that trend.

It might not (although I really believe it would). But that's not the issue. The issue is that we cannot even discuss and debate those underlying critical issues if one side has their heads buried in lies and refuses to even accept the facts. Discussion and negotiation can take place between people who disagree about goals and values and even between people who dislike each other. But discussion and negotiation between two parties that do not even agree on the shape of current reality is a complete waste of time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Or by changes in the media ecosystem, since one of the most dramatic successes of right-wing populism took place in the U.K. (the growth of UKIP and Brexit), which has one of the more tightly regulated broadcast and television regimes in the Western World when it comes to politics, and does not have anything like a Fox News or a Rush Limbaugh on the air.

Murdoch's empire is a worldwide one. The Times article from a couple of years ago gives a good overview.


https://www.mediareform.org.uk/murdochs-media-empire-timelin...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/magazine/rupe...

regards,
Kris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. I think there is just a much larger population of people that we thought - worldwide - when confronted with change, enjoy pushing vulnerable people down and laughing about it. Makes them feel powerful and in charge.

That was my sad epiphany when Trump gained voters in 2020. We're the smartest primates, but we're still primates.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4

No. I think there is just a much larger population of people that we thought - worldwide -


So True.
The world's population has doubled since the time of Reagan; not uniformly. In the most poor and commodity-starved nations is where the Earth's population of humans has grown several times over since Reagan.
Almost every major issue can be traced to human overpopulation, whether it be immigration, global warming, plastic waste, pandemics, or wealth divide. Human Over population is seldom addressed as an issue, although it is the underlying issue for most of the humanity's problems.
Print the post Back To Top