Not necessarily. Remember, the OP is about a California Republican. Those in California who turn independent are clearly not still voting Republican, as this election showed.
(cheap joke about the paucity of what does happen in Canada elided)
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye was appointed by Ahnuld and is subject to regular retention elections. Having a party behind her, and toeing its line is important.
Not really. With the exception of occasional weird situations, like the Rose Bird court, “re-election” is par for the course. Indeed, the California Supreme Court bench is one of the few “statewide” offices that tends to have a decent chance of supporting a Republican, even when the rest of the state is going full Democrat.
The one group of conservatives that by and large seems to be sticking with their never-Trumpism are the neocons. They seem to have more principles than some of the other groups on the right.
Also, George Will is notable. It’s taken enormous guts for him to stick to his guns.
The only ones who “did bombings”, as you said, were the right-wing nutballs, like McVeigh and all of the abortion clinic bombers.
I disagree, the republican party is becoming more and more true to their roots and their voters.
For the last few decades, the rich and powerful have played on the tribalistic agenda of the GOP base to get elected, and once elected they push for plutocratic economic agendas (privatize SS & medicare, abolish ACA, cut taxes on the rich, cut regulations, abolish unions, etc).
Only now the GOP is becoming more and more honest about the true agenda of their voters. The base of the GOP is patriarchal christian white nationalists who don’t respect liberal democracy. The GOP pretended to care about states rights, competence, etc. but the GOP for the last 50 years has been white nationalists who don’t respect democracy being led by plutocrats.
I feel like the George Wills, David Frums, etc. are only leaving the party because now they can’t manipulate the GOP base into voting for plutocratic agendas as easily.
Fifty years of the southern strategy and people who score high in authoritarianism joining the GOP is going to have consequences. Throw in a propaganda network and we are where we are.
The only thing happening is the illusion is breaking down. People see the conservative movement for what they are and always have been (the same as they were in the Jim Crow south. Resentful white nationalists who hate democracy). However Trump still serves the plutocrat agenda. He cut trillions in taxes for the rich, put a bunch of pro corporate judges on the bench, ended a lot of regulations, etc.
How so? 
I left at some point during GWB’s second term because I saw this was the direction that they were headed, though I won’t claim that I appreciated how far down they would fall.
I guess the biggest thing to me is how a person who became a Republican before, say, 2005 could possibly still be affiliated with a party that has taken such a dramatic turn away from the conservativism that supposedly attracted them to the party. It’s like being a member of PETA and then sticking with them when they decide that their mission is to punch as many animals in the face as possible.
Well, it’s a big tent.
That may be because they at least have an actual ideological ethos (pace, Walter Sobchak), as opposed to just a visceral reactive impulse to the changes in society and a craving for power for the sake of “punishing” those who were party to that change.
But, he is telling that illiberal base that those measures ARE “populist”, and they are buying it… because to them, anything that sounds like you will “be tough” and “not care what they say” and “pwn the Libtards” means you are standing up for them. The Illiberal White Nationalists have come to accept that no matter who’s in charge they’re getting screwed, but they might as well stand tough and whenever possible “punish” the other side.
I wouldn’t call the Boston Marathon bombers right wingers.
I would.
Does right-wing = conservative? Because I really don’t think you can classify these hardcore religious nuts as progressives/left-wing. They may not be right-wing by Republican standards, but they *are *conservative.
Exactly. Do most of the Republican rank-and-file these days really give a shit about anything George Will has to say? Would most of them even be able to pick the guy out of a line-up?
George Will is the sort of old school commentator who might still have a bit of sway among a small subset of country club and chamber of commerce conservatives. But the hurr-durr faction of the Republican Party is firmly in charge these days, and their intellectual leaders are the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters and, of course, Trumps of the world. So unfortunately I can’t see how a few establishment types like George Will and David Frum breaking ranks is going to get many GOP voters to defect.
I agree; however, they certainly would not have felt sympathies with either side of the American political spectrum. I think that, for purposes of this discussion, bombings by Islamic extremists aren’t really on the spectrum.
I don’t think we’ve seen many bombings in the U.S. by liberal extremists in recent years, though it certainly happened in the past (for example, the Sterling Hall bombing at the University of Wisconsin in 1970, by anti-war protestors). Eco-terrorists are maybe the most noteworthy liberal terrorists in the US over the past few decades, and outside of Ted Kaczynski, bombings don’t seem to be their method.
Yeah, Frum & Will have no influence at all on the Right currently. They’re completely out of step with the craziness that holds sway.
[snip]
But the plutocratic agenda is still what the GOP does. I don’t have any survey data, so maybe I am wrong, but this is what it looks like to me: The operating core of the GOP isn’t the white nationalists. The party is largely made up of businessmen who want to think they’re overtaxed and over-regulated, and it’s been that way for generations. They may be commonly racist because they live in a racist society, but they’re motivated by the dream of living without “government on their backs.”
They can attach themselves to the military-industrial complex, they can attach themselves to the “religious right,” they can attach themselves to loudmouth self-described patriots, and now they attach themselves to explicit white nationalists; all of these are groups that some part of the anti-tax businessman voter can sympathize with, but they are incorporated to win votes. The neo-nazis are gearing up to serve the same function as the pro-lifers did twenty years ago. But the party exists, at core, to break the hold of taxes and regulations, as they keep insisting. And if they hate democracy, well, yeah, they hate democracy when it raises their taxes, and they love it when they can manipulate it to lower them.
This is what Steve Bannon seemed not to understand. There is no patriotic, nationalistic, nor pro-white core to the faction in control of the party; and they are still in control of the party. They’re not going to raise the wages of their “white brothers” nor their “fellow Americans.” It is the party of the selfish and kind of anti-social. The nationalists, racists, and xenophobes are largely just useful idiots for the coalition like the pro-lifers and and anti-gay voters. Economic policy is still set by the anti-tax crowd. It’s the same old song. What’s new & dangerous about it is that neo-nazis will kill for their masters more than Jesus people will.
That’s what I think. But if you have data proving me wrong, OK.
Not a “neoconservative,” but I also hear that whatever ideology Ammon Bundy has, he has come out against Homeland Security’s treatment of immigrants. Persons who believe in principles will come into conflict with the party when the party abandons those positions, and those persons be disgusted at how many of their co-partisans just didn’t care about what was important to them. I went through a form of this myself when Dubya was kidnapping foreign nationals and throwing them in secret installations. That’s not who I thought we were.
Actually, I think what there’s a “paucity” of in the US is news about other countries, not a paucity of actual events. While you weren’t looking, Canada enacted universal single-payer health care, abolished all abortion laws, recognized gay rights and legalized same-sex marriage long before Obergefell, and just legalized cannabis nationwide at the federal level. You guys could use a “paucity” of events like that. 
It’s true, however, that certain things are indeed very boring in Canada. Among those is the almost universally non-controversial appointment of Supreme Court justices, and the operation of the justice system in general. Politics in general tends to be boring because it tends to lack outrageous lunatics. These are examples of boring = good. Some things should be boring – evidence-based instead of political, predictable and balanced instead of surprising and outrageous. I believe that’s really the point here.
I’m not a conservative, but my impression is when Trump claims to be a populist, he basically means he will make America a white, christian patriarchy again and put all the non-whites, foreigners, feminists, secularists, muslims, liberals, etc in their place.
Trump also runs on being anti-establishment, which has appeal on both sides (Bernie ran on being anti-establishment too. Arguably so did Obama).
But sadly right wing populism is growing all over the world for various reasons. Its something we really need to take serious. I read a really interesting article about George Soros, and how he fears liberal democracy is under threat. He (I believe) donated the rest of his fortune to liberal democratic causes since his is in his 80s now.
I used to think Fukuyama was right and liberal democracy was the end road of social development, but I don’t know anymore. Maybe this is just a phase, maybe globalization and immigration is leading to a temporary resurgence in right wing authoritarianism that’ll pass in a decade or two. Who knows. Soros feels the US has a very strong civic institution that’ll withstand Trump. But keep in mind the entire south had to be forced to act civilized at gunpoint at multiple times in US history, and the culture there hasn’t changed.
I see that as fairly standard garden variety Libertarian anti-federal-government-with-guns stuff. A lot of Libertarians I know also don’t have a problem with open border immigration. They say they want people who are willing to travel thousands of miles and risk their lives to get here - they are the strong ones!