LogFAQs > #958163836

Sorry to double post but if I were to arm-chair internet psychoanalyze the sentiment behind both the Frum and Brooks pieces it comes off to me as a desperate desire and need to rationalize how many people within their circle, whether personally or professionally, ended up becoming radicalized. Because it happened, in their eyes, so quickly and suddenly under Trump they latch on to the idea that Trump was a unique, aberrant factor responsible for the change -- these people may have been Republicans, or identified as staunch conservatives, but we were always able to put politics to the side and have a beer together so it can't be anything inherent to that, after all, right? It was something unique to Trump.

Except now they're working backwards - having determined their conclusion and reaching backwards to find a rationale to have it all line up. And in doing so, you can almost always pick out the same common blindspots. This topic has gone over them before but just to do again -- Trump wasn't some unique event here, he was the next step on a trajectory the Republican Party has been heading towards for over 25-50 years. If there's anything unique about him it's that the accelerator on that path got pushed through the floor with his candidacy, campaign, and administration because they had the misfortune of finding a uniquely terrible person to become head of the party.

The rise of social and cultural issues taking a forefront position in our politics? Like I said, this was an intentional tactical decision on the part of the 2004 Bush campaign who pushed to have states add social issue initiatives to the ballot in the hopes of driving the base to the polls to secure a win over Kerry. Before that in 2000 they infamously played on a racist lie in the Republican primary to defeat McCain. GOP strategists like Rove didn't just throw darts at a wall for what might help energize their base with those kinds of tactics, they understood those urges existed in their base and intentionally looked to stoke them. They simply believed they could control them and keep the intellectual conservative think-tank types really running the show. They were wrong.

The same kind of "firebrand" politicking didn't start there either. Gingrich staked everything on the same kind of fiery, partisan, demonizing rhetoric and showmanship back in the '80s. The House literally had to change the C-SPAN camera rules because Gingrich kept cutting these promos where he made it looked like he was on the House floor "calling out" Democrats to their faces... when in reality he was speaking in an empty chamber. Back then the camera just stayed locked on the speaker so you'd just see him and maybe a staff member or two of his in the background. The reason they pan around the room on occasion? That was put in place to show the actual state of the House in response to his behavior. Then when he and the GOP were rewarded for this stuff in 1994 he went all-in on pushing the Clinton impeachment and lost hard on it which was about the only rebuke they got out of all this but he showed the path was there to be followed.

And of course before all that was Nixon and the Southern Strategy which sought to take in all the Southern Dixiecrats, segregationists, and racists because LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act was seen as a political opportunity. As a result we had the party re-alignment where the two parties basically switched. In making an intentional play to bring those people into the fold they basically set themselves up for much of the above. Reagan played on it with "welfare queens" and then Trump simply elevated it to the next level but again it was not a new impulse, the seeds were planted back here.

There's more too, a lot more, but I've already written a whole lot more than I ever intended for now.

---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?