(05-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: [Kinser]It is my view that following this election the GOP will become, however, begrudgingly the party of social libertarianism and of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, and that further this will be the basis of building the new order.
[Mike] I don’t see this as possible. Nationalism comes with social conservatism. In fact it is a kind of conservatism. It makes far more sense for the GOP to become the party of social conservatism, nationalism, protectionism, isolationism and white people. In fact this is more or less the Trump faction right now.
The question would be where does the business and labor factions go? I would argue Labor will go to the party Business does not choose. Business is pretty much OK with social liberalism, and could find a place in the Democratic party, if they were willing to shed some of their more extreme economic libertarian views. Business did just that in the Eisenhower and Nixon years. If they were willing to do this, the Democrats could become the party of big business, high taxes (with balanced budget), public infrastructure, social liberalism, open borders, and minorities. And Labor would then go to the Republicans.
That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.
Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.
Does this say something?
100 years apart, overlay between William Howard Taft and Barack Obama, 1908/2008.
Taft ® 51.6/321 - Bryan (D) 43.0/162 - Debs (S) 2.8/0
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain ® 45.6/173
Similar percentages of the electoral vote for the winners.
Taft/ McCain blue
Taft/Obama yellow
Bryan/Obama red
Bryan/McCain green
Bryan won all of the former secessionist states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Nevada. Bryan won seven states by 9% or less; Taft won six states by 9% or less. Other states were blow-outs.
Clearly different in 1908 from a century later: Alaska, Arizona, Dee Cee, Hawaii, and New Mexico weren't voting. There was no television or even radio in 1908. Above all, several Southern states did not have free and fair elections (blacks were effectively barred from voting).
...The political parties of a century ago aren't what they are today. Or even between Eisenhower and Obama:
dark blue -- Republican all four times
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Obama once
light green -- Eisenhower once, Obama never
dark green -- Eisenhower never, Obama never
pink -- Eisenhower never, Obama once
No state went Democratic all four times, so I show no true red here.
(I assume that the Nebraska districts including Greater Omaha would have gone to Eisenhower).
white -- Eisenhower and Obama twice)
I am tempted to believe that many of the people of some swing demographics that voted for Eisenhower voted for Barack Obama. Republicans used to have a huge advantage among people with above-average incomes, and that was reversed in 2008. As a proxy for economic success, an above-average level of formal education made one a likely voter for the Republican nominee for President until about 2008. Barack Obama had a huge advantage among such people.
You will also notice that Taft and Eisenhower won some states that long went Democratic except in Republican blowouts, Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the only non-Southern states that voted against Herbert Hoover in 1928; Massachusetts and Minnesota were the only states that Nixon lost in 1972 and Reagan lost in 1984, those being the two worst states for the Republican winners of 49-state blowouts. It is not a surprise that Obama won those -- the surprise is that Eisenhower won those twice.
(Of course Eisenhower and Obama seem to have similar temperaments as President, which may say much about the generational cycle despite the vastly-different curricula vitae of the two Presidents. I also see them similarly competent).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.