The Republican Party reinvents itself
I don’t know how many people watch conventions. But I do know that, if a lot of undecideds watched the RNC this year, a large percentage would have to be impressed.
I don’t usually watch more than a minute or two of these boring and formulaic events, and I don’t think the GOP has been known for ground-breaking innovation in that regard; au contraire. But for whatever reason – being forced to break the mold because of COVID and/or civil unrest, the input of Trump, or something else – the meta-message of this convention was that this was not your father’s GOP. This was a party of energy and fresh ideas, a party that’s actually inclusive rather than merely rhetorically so, and one that embraces the American dream that most people here still share.
The word “refreshing” keeps coming to mind, and that is not a word I usually think of when I think about the Republican Party as a political entity. The other word is “sincerity,” which is what all the personal testimonials of the non-politicians conveyed. The convention was heavy with them; they formed a high proportion of the speakers, and they were uniformly moving, inspiring, and eloquent.
I didn’t plan to watch more than a few minutes on the first night. But when I tuned in, I found to my surprise that I was also drawn in. I probably watched at least half of all four nights, and that is exceptionally unusual for me. I can’t imagine that anyone with an open mind who happened to watch wouldn’t be pleasantly surprised at what he or she saw and heard.
NOTE: And here’s an interesting piece by a former NeverTrumper:
Thursday night… President Trump did what he does best; he spoke to a crowd. There was joy and optimism and patriotism. Instead of fear there was pride. For me, he was no longer the lesser of two evils but a man I dearly hope will remain our president.
It is fashionable these days for former Republicans to gang up and sling dirt at Trump. This is supposed to be meaningful because supposedly they are conservatives. Well, two can play at that game. If their abandonment of Trump is meaningful then so is my embrace. And the difference? They represent a tiny, dying breed of think tank technocrats; I represent a vast constituency of Americans who have come to see the power of his leadership.
I believe that Donald Trump will win reelection, though I warn you, as I said above, I’m wrong a lot. But it doesn’t matter. Even if he should lose he has changed the GOP, he has changed conservatism, and he has changed me. We will not play defense anymore. Those of us who love America will fight for its values and ideals. I thank Donald Trump for helping me find the courage to be a part of that fight. Here’s to four more years.
The difference between Donald Trump actually WANTING votes from African-Americans, gays, etc. and past GOP candidates who talked about wanting them only to assuage the sensitivities of upper middle class whites is as stark as anything in politics today.
Just saw that Trump has received endorsement of Democratic mayors in the Iron Range (arrowhead region) of Minnesota. I doubt this will turn MN red as the city really control the votes, but interesting nonetheless.
I never watch conventions, just highlights, maybe. After the highlights of night 1, I found the complete stream to watch in its entirety. Then, a few hours later I watched night 2. Then night 3. This morning I watched night 4.
I was neverTrump in the 2016 primary, but happily pulled the lever for him in the general. I have had a smile on my face for the last 3+ years. I will enthusiastically vote for him in November.
I have to say that there must be a huge disconnect somewhere. The 538 Presidential polls page shows Biden with a consistent double digit lead over President Trump among likely voters.
I’m not sure what is happening at all.
I was neverTrump in the 2016 primary, but happily pulled the lever for him in the general. I have had a smile on my face for the last 3+ years. I will enthusiastically vote for him in November.
Same–not really “neverTrump” but not my first choice, in part for fear he wouldn’t be able to win the general, and in part for fear he wouldn’t be very conservative. By October I was sufficiently confident that I put a fair amount of money down on him at predictit.org when he was at $0.22. My only fear this year is that the mail-in vote fraud could decide some swing states, but my hunch is that it won’t be close.
“I’m not sure what is happening at all.”
No one knows what is going on. Seriously. The numbers are what they are but you can tell that virtually EVERYONE in politics believes they’re not entirely accurate. Polling depends on a public that is willing to give their honest opinion and after four years of the media and the political establishment screaming at the public every minute of every hour of every day, how can you possible expect to get an honest opinion?
Which isn’t to say Trump is really more popular than the polls say or he’s heading toward a blowout or anything. But between “shy” Trump supporters and the clear difference in voter enthusiasm, I don’t think anyone has a clue what’s happening.
Mike
Trump has remade the GOP along the style and lines Barry Goldwater advocated (that “evil” conservative- “”Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” – who would take us into thermonuclear war, right, LBJ?) in 1964. In his acceptance speech. Goldwater went on:
“We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private
property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man,
rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the
only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And
beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of
motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone’s life for him –
we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive,
with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned
tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.”
This is no longer the weenie party that was content to be in 2nd place. It is not the party of silly, weak men like Gerald Ford, both Bushs plus Jeb! and Ben Sasse.
Re: “silly, weak…,” Don’t forget the latter day saint nitwit Mitt !
Mitt Romney, strip miner of American companies, exporter of jobs, destroyer of the accumulated social capital of centuries, is many things.
To call him a Nitwit is to grievously insult genuine harmless Nitwits and makes it harder for folks to grasp just what kind of person he is and just what he did to so many innocent entries in his spreadsheets.
He’s also living proof that current problems in the US cannot be entirely attributed to Alien elements. Enough blame for everyone to receive their justly-apportioned share. Justly-apportioned Share not being a concept the Romneys of this world would approve of if they’re not doing the apportioning themselves.
LeClerc:
My catalog is incomplete. Can add McCain to that list, and others.
As some folks say,
“Stay Calm
and Keep Taking Over
the Republican party.”
Cicero, I agree with much of what you said; but, I cannot see G.HW. Bush and John McCain as weak. Nor for that matter G.W.
As a retired Naval Aviator, if for no other reason, I love and have undying respect for the youngest Naval Aviator in WWII. How dare anyone call him weak?
I have never really admired McCain for various reasons. But, no one who survived Hanoi and came out with their honor intact should be called weak.
G.W. was dealt a horrible hand. He had to lead the country through one of the greatest shocks in its history; then fight Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Democrats and the media all at once. (Besides he flew F-102–try that sometime.) G.W.’s problem, much like his Dad’s, was that he was too much of a gentleman for the politics of the day. Blame their Mothers for raising gentlemen.
You need to rethink.
Having said that, I really do appreciate your reminding us of what Goldwater actually said. In retrospect it was quite reasonable. You could say that by today’s rhetorical standards it was fairly bland. What a shame. Goldwater, like Trump, told the truth and the purveyors of untruth attacked him mercilessly. Too bad he wasn’t running against someone like Hillary; he might have survived it. Instead he was running as much against the memory of Camelot as anything.
Oldflyer,
“As a retired Naval Aviator, if for no other reason, I love and have undying respect for the youngest Naval Aviator in WWII. How dare anyone call him weak?
Weak no. Gravely mistaken on a number of issues, YES.
Most famously, “Read my lips, NO new taxes!”
“I have never really admired McCain for various reasons. But, no one who survived Hanoi and came out with their honor intact should be called weak.”
Did he leave with his honor intact? There have long been persistent rumors that he behaved dishonorably. McCain’s over the top reactions and refusal to allow investigation into those claims gave credibility to those accusations. As if untrue, what did he have to lose? But whether true or not, McCain as a Senator was wrong on many issues far more often than not. In so often placing ego above country, he revealed himself to be unworthy of the office he held.
“G.W. was dealt a horrible hand. He had to lead the country through one of the greatest shocks in its history; then fight Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Democrats and the media all at once.”
That’s true. It’s also true that he has never admitted that his support for the plan to graft democracy onto Islamic cultures was inherently flawed. I too bought into that perception but events and a greater understanding of Islamic fundamentals long ago demonstrated the impossibility of bringing democracy to Islamic cultures. An unwillingness to admit error is the sign of an insecure ego.
Oldflyer:
“Weak”, as in spiritually, constitutionally, and/or politically weak.
Which has nothing to do with one’s physical strength and determination as a young man.
McCain the “maverick”, voting with Dems. McCain, part of the Keating Five, unindicted but corrupt. Gave us McCain-Feingold, which is him getting into bed with the enemy. Refused to resign his seat though facing certain brain tumor death (frontal lobe, site of cognition!) and give a fill-in time to become a solid GOP Senatorial replacement.
GHW Bush: reneged on “No new Taxes”. Not strong, caved in. Did not take Baghdad despite overwhelming force advantage. Weak.
George W: Turned Iraq occupation over to incapables and did not ride them or fire them. Gentleman, yes. But he will not vote for Trump, which tells me something. “Compassionate conservatism” is BS; it is weak.
Cicero,
“Did not take Baghdad despite overwhelming force advantage. Weak.”
Can’t entirely agree. Bush got the Arabs to sign on board the coalition by assuring them that he had no desire or intention to take out Saddam. That he only wanted to drive Saddam out of Kuwait which was vital to keeping Saddam out of Saudi Arabia, a commonly viewed strategic ambition of Saddam. Saddam was also viewed as a necessary bulwark against Iranian ambitions. The agreement of the Saudis to allow American use of their military bases were vital to that war. Whether correct or not, those were viewed as viable arguments for leaving Saddam in power. Only hindsight demonstrated Saddam’s bull headedness along with the E.U. undermining of the resulting restrictions placed upon Saddam.
I do strongly agree that George W’s refusal to support Trump conclusively reveals him to be a RINO.
“Compassionate conservatism” is BS; it is weak.”
Compassion without tough mindedness IS weak.
“Mercy to the (unrepentant) guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” Adam Smith
MBunge, on “how can you possible expect to get an honest opinion?”
Yeah, esp. when folks answer fewer calls than ever, as their phones ring constantly, from scammers, etc.
Geoffrey:
When you are in the driver’s seat, in command of a major military force about to strike Kuwait from Saudi, you do what is needed to resolve the problem if you are strong. If you let the Saudis dictate the terms when you are there as their salvation, that is weakness.
I was one of thousands who called the White House urging GHW to protect the Kurds fleeing into the winter mountains, and after a week or so he did the no-fly deal, no more than that. Weakness again. Passive.
Further, a truly strong Bismarckian fellow might have entertained generating a “revolt” against the Saudi rulers and empaneled a less Islamist regime. The assets were already there.
GHW left a mess that son George W had to try to clean up. Eastern Iraq, the large plurality of Iraqis, is Shia and has always been soft on Iran, as we have learned. Keeping Saddam in the saddle against Iran was not good jockey selection!
LeClerc on August 28, 2020 at 4:40 pm said:
Re: “silly, weak…,” Don’t forget the latter day saint nitwit Mitt !
* * *
Well, every group has their share of nitwits.
Sadly, my opinion of Mr. Romney has dropped precipitately since 2012, but he would still have been a better choice than Obama.
“No one knows what is going on” – MBunge
This guy is pretty sure he knows, and he has a record to support him.
https://news.stonybrook.edu/facultystaff/maverick-modeller-helmut-norpoth-predicts-another-win-for-trump/
I hope he did the math right.
I’m with MBunge. I think it is important to admit to ourselves that “No one knows”. Happy talk from an academic predicting a Trump landslide reminds me of the NY Times predicting a Hillary win at over 90% the day before the 2016 election and even Nate Silver having it at over 60% conscientiously based on two objective methodologies. @Cicero – thanks for the Goldwater quote. I remember voting for LBJ in 1964 and drinking the Kool Aid that Goldwater was highly likely to start a nuclear war. Perhaps he was, but we don’t know. Just as we don’t know if re electing Trump is the best way to defeat the Marxism that has all but taken over one of our political parties. Perhaps they have have to get into power again to completely arouse the American spirit against them. We don’t know. I also found the discussion of weakness around the two Bush presidents, McCain, Mitt et al full of telling observations on both sides of the discussion. While it is obvious that what it means to be a Republican is changing because of Trump it is encouraging to see the mixed record of its recent leaders is being scrutinized productively. Well done.
Cicero,
“When you are in the driver’s seat, in command of a major military force about to strike Kuwait from Saudi, you do what is needed to resolve the problem if you are strong. If you let the Saudis dictate the terms when you are there as their salvation, that is weakness.”
Had Bush stated his intention to destroy Saddam’s Baathist regime, the Saudis would never have allowed use of their bases . Which would have given Saddam a free pass on ‘annexing’ Kuwait, as those bases were critical to pre-positioning our forces.
Also and again, removing Saddam would have started a Iraqi civil war and, definitely removed the Iraq’s Baathist bulwark against Iranian ambitions.
Bush’s abandonment of the Kurds was despicable. But given the geopolitical dynamics, the argument that it would have made things worse is arguable.
“Further, a truly strong Bismarckian fellow might have entertained generating a “revolt” against the Saudi rulers and empaneled a less Islamist regime. The assets were already there.”
Bismark was a brilliant political strategist whose machinations ironically helped to enable WWI.
Other than the fanatical Whabbists, what other ‘assets’ were available to fill the power vacuum that a revolt against the Saudi rulers would have brought? I know of none.
It’s not enough to simply state that we should have just gone in and busted heads. Long term repercussions must be considered and a viable strategy developed to avoid jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
I like to think that the GOP is, in all of this, to some meaningful degree being redefined away from just the same broken record of tax cuts and big business. It seems to me that part of the motivation for the selection of so many Midwestern speakers at the convention was to start to indicate a bit of a reorientation – by compulsion, to some extent – back toward Middle America. I say ‘by compulsion’ because I get the feeling that the GOP elite still clings somewhat to the coastal way of looking at life and Trump (even though he’s a NY-er) is trying in some way to prod the party the other way. This is part of why I like your post title.
Of course, there is also the fairly obvious play for the sentiments of Minnesotans as a factor.
Geoffrey, what happened that you lost a consonant?
Geoffrey:
You cannot have it both ways when you counter my comments on GHW fighting Saddam.
After all, you did write “which was vital to keeping Saddam out of Saudi Arabia, a commonly viewed strategic ambition of Saddam”, did you not?
Geofrey Britain on August 29, 2020 at 2:25 am said: “… removing Saddam would have … definitely removed the Iraq’s Baathist bulwark against Iranian ambitions.”
I recall from that time period a report that Bush 41 mentioned he understood the very long standing Sunni-Shiite rivalry and that was (part of?) why he did not do more. But it was never clear if he ever gave Bush 43 the benefit of his knowledge, trying to keep a hands off position relative to his son’s presidency.
The post 911 “Religion of Peace” posture was a real misstep, or a purposeful deception to avoid some other geopolitical pain.
“Other than the fanatical [Wahhabists], what other ‘assets’ were available to fill the power vacuum that a revolt against the Saudi rulers would have brought?”
I agree, but have sometimes entertained the fantasy that the US et al. might set up the Hashemite regime in Jordan as rulers of SA. I believe they lost out in some past conflict and thus would probably be happy to recover their previous ruling position. But, again = pure fantasy.
Philip Sells,
Caca happens. Once again I prove that I’m only human 😉
Cicero,
I did indeed say that, which in no way is trying to have it both ways. There was reasonable suspicion that if successful with Kuwait, Saddam would at some future point look to Saudi Arabia next. There was also reasonable certainty that the Saudi’s were extremely reluctant to allow a strong US military presence on S.A. soil.
Bush Sr. concluded that the only way to reassure the Saudi’s and get permission to use their bases was to impress upon the Saudis that America did not have territorial designs and that all we wished was to protect national borders from invasion. That pushing Saddam out of Kuwait and degrading his military capabilities enough that he couldn’t repeat his aggression was all that we desired. That was a position that the Saudis could get on board with…
Philip Sells on August 29, 2020 at 6:25 am said: “I like to think that the GOP is …
being redefined away from just the same broken record of tax cuts and big business.”
Given our current federal debt and entitlement position, I now cringe every time I hear the words “tax cut” when there is not even a hint of a whisper of a vague notion that there should be some associated spending cuts to go with it. I need to see more and stronger evidence that the GOP is really reorienting itself before I join your optimism.
I am not sure if we should welcome it or fear it, but eventually “Stein’s Law will intervene; … if something cannot go on forever it will stop.”
Not all conservatives will agree, but I believe that if the Republicans were to gain the House, Senate, and Presidency, then the GOP should push for a Convention of the States, while our stars are ascending, to resurrect the Constitution we were meant to have. Some risks with this, yes, but also probably our best opportunity (short of CW 2) to more fully shackle the progressives/ Leftists and their concept of a “living Constitution”, hopefully thereby regaining/ retaining liberty for our posterity.
Cicero, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is misbegotten.
You cite examples of weaknesses taken completely out of context.
None of those men were “weak” just because you do not agree with decisions that they made. In the case of the two Bushes, I will never buy an argument that they did not do what they thought was best for the country at the time the decisions were made. Never!
As for McCain, there was much about him that I thought inexplicable, and characteristics that I did not care for. But, weakness was not one of his failings. Do not insult his memory with that label. As a Vietnam era Naval Aviator myself, I have tried to project how I would have behaved under the conditions that McCain and the others endured. I cannot. Nor can anyone else.
G.B.:
So we rescued Kuwait for the Kuwaitis and for the EU, which needed their oil?
This predated fracking and our current oil independence, and I do not recall what % we imported at the time.
But, and a big but, GHW had made his fortune in the oil patch, and I wonder how his oilfield connections played into his decision to rescue Kuwait. Recall Tillerson, Exxon CEO who became SOS for Trump rather briefly and who was totally used to dealing with all manner of foreign dictators in oil deals.
Cicero,
“So we rescued Kuwait for the Kuwaitis and for the EU, which needed their oil?”
Not at all. We rescued Kuwait to demonstrate our support for geopolitical stability. Conquest of one nation of another is no longer considered legitimate. Even the U.N. declares that to be an inviolable principle.
G.B.-
Surely you jest with your UN inviolability! I do not hold the UN in any regard whatsoever.It is a den of non-democracies, a den of tyrants and thieves.
As to conquest of one nation by another, does that extend to overthrow of one government and installation of another, more favorable one? Or restitution of the latter? If so, see Iraq, Afghanistan, Crimea, Grenada! Even Syria! We’re not just talking of seizing and holding dirt.
R2L, I agree that the real tangible evidence for it is still thin, as far as fiscal discipline goes. In fact, I think the GOP even now is still not really on board with the idea. What I meant to indicate is my hopeful feeling that indirectly, by dint of Trump’s apparent focus on mid-America and by extension (again, one hopes) mid-American values such as fiscal discipline, and showing the rest of what remains of the GOP that we are at a point at which this focus can bear fruits of some electoral success, Trump can maybe perhaps drag the GOP kicking and screaming into this new (or new-old?) mindset, and then we might stand a chance. It’s in the spirit of Friedman’s statement about the way to get politics to work is not to elect the right people, but rather to convince the wrong people to do the right thing.
I would be more convinced of this if I thought Trump himself really took fiscal discipline seriously; I’m not really sure that he does. But on the other hand, at least we can say that he has a tangible first-hand knowledge of what concepts like insolvency, budgets, payroll really mean. To the average Congressdweeb, who seems firmly convinced that 2 + 2 really can equal 7 if you just shout loudly enough, those must be such light and airy notions. But even that little bit of sense of reality that Trump must have is better than the pure fantasy that we get from most of those creatures.