Is a Healthy GOP even possible anymore?

Politics & Elections
1

What would it look like? And who would be a member of it?

When people like Nancy Pelosi say that she wants a healthy (or a normal, or a sane) GOP, what does that actually mean?

The problem with the GOP goes miles beyond Mitt Romney’s frustration with the personal cowardice of his colleagues, or Trump’s co-defendants turning on him to save their asses from decades in prison, or ex-GOP blatherers like Joe Scarborough complaining about their former party’s hypocrisies—it extends to a fundamental corruption in conservative thought, which none of them will admit to.

Giving them, and those like them, every benefit of the doubt, conservative ideology has been revealed to be fundamentally rotten at its core. Such lofty principles as “individual freedom” and “states’ rights” and “mistrust of governmental bureaucracy” etc. have been revealed as veneers barely covering up (to anyone with eyes) a deep commitment to a nation dedicated to denying rights to every American who is not rich, white, Christian, male, and straight.

Now, these apologists for the GOP can claim, with greater and lesser degrees of plausibility, that they abhor the biases I just identified as essential to conservative ideology, but they cannot plausibly deny that the base of the current Republican party holds those biases dear to their black hearts.

So if they wish to “revive” or “recover” their ideal GOP, they will have to do it with the help of these millions of MAGA-supporters, or else face having a minority party for several generations. Without the enthusiastic support of MAGA-sympathizers, they’re stuck with a political base of what? 20% of the voters in the U.S.? Fewer?

They’re totally screwed, politically speaking. Even now, those few GOPers who denounce their party are still aligned ideologically with the people they’re denouncing. They cannot give up the essential notion that they hold in common with the most extreme MAGA-nuts which is that preserving the status quo (or reverting to some previous ideal of the status quo) is necessary. And the virtue of the status quo, for them, is that it leaves white, male, straight, Christian, wealthy people in power.

The virtue of opposing the status quo (progressivism) is that it challenges that notion. It removes barriers to other Americans gaining autonomous power, and they don’t want that.

What the MAGA movement has done is to bring out in public the racism and greed and naked self-interest that the GOP has tried to keep private, or at most whispered and dog-whistled, for decades. A schmuck like Trump lacked the good taste to continue that charade, and half the GOP winced at his boldness while the other half screamed “Right on! That’s saying it like it is, brother! At last!”

But at bottom there is very small distinction to be drawn between “conservative” thought and “reactionary” thought, between “MAGA” and “GOP.” And that’s what people like Mitt Romney refuse to admit, that his entire view of the world is inherently corrupt and self-interested, that it has no interest at all in seeing that the millions of poor Americans are able to live lives of dignity, that millions of Americans of color are able to have justice, that millions of gay Americans are able to love who they love, that millions of women are able to feel safe, that millions of non-Christian Americans are able to feel equal under the law. Romney and his ilk fundamentally don’t care about this majority of Americans, just as long as their money and power are protected, and without the MAGA wing of their party, they would be voted out of power almost instantly.

2

Political regeneration is usually a near intergenerational re-alignment and rarely occurs until after a couple of nose bleed inducing electoral shellackings.

If the current GOP platform can deliver presidential/gubernatorial/House/Senate victories or at minimum highly competitive races, in pragmatic and practical terms, why would the GOP care about how many people are outside their tent?

3

“Is a healthy GOP even possible anymore?”

…nope.

4

If there’s ever been a healthy GOP it was over 100 years ago. Where they are now was their obvious destination going back to Herbert Hoover.

5

Only to the extent that a healthy Nazi party was possible in 1946.

6

@slicedalone I have to compliment you on a beautiful OP. I saw the other post this was derived from and I really like the clarity of thought in this one.

My musings:
There’s a bit of a tautology here because “conservative” has a lot of meanings.

Inherent in the idea is “little or no change”. Which has the effect of cementing in the traditional roster of winners and losers. If we have defined the goal of a good society as overturning that roster so a different list of winners and losers emerges, well, that can’t be conservative, and conservatism can be nothing but an obstacle to all that is good and right.

Make no mistake. Absent different human nature, even if we magically eliminated all groupism from everyone’s thinking and acting, and magically eliminated all the group-based barriers we know so well, a new collection of winners would emerge almost immediately, and as a matter of logic that would necessitate a new collection of losers.

A meritocracy sounds nice until you realize how few people have great merit. Or more accurately, given the uneven distribution of inherent merit (brains, ambition, wisdom, ethics) across the population, the top few percent will still stand head and shoulders above the crowd and will quickly gather most all the benefits of that merit unto themselves.

We/they could redefine leftism as preventing the emergence of any losers, and thereby preventing the emergence of any winners, whereas rightism could be defined as encouraging the emergence of desirable winners and (unfortunately) losers as well. As long as the reasons for losing are individual and meritocratic, not because the winners stole the losers’ opportunities before they were born or obtained their winner status via corrupt means. That might admit of a “Law and Order” sort of conservatism that placed total anti-corruption as its Prime Directive. IOW “Cheaters are an affront to the idea of Merit Uber Alles, will not be tolerated, and will be stopped”.

With few exceptions, American professional sports could be an example of a “healthy” conservative ideology. Most competitors get there by merit and stay there only as long as they’re more meritful than the up-and-comers behind them. Some nepotism and racism intrudes, but that’s recognized as a perturbation, not the central organizing principal. It certainly helps in the implementation that extreme athleticism declines fairly early in life, so each player’s days in the sun are 5 to 15 years at most, and only rarely extending to 25. Generational turnover is much faster in sports than in, say, tycoonery. And that sort of merit is much less heritable than are vast financial assets.

7

Thanks for the appreciative words, @LSLGuy . One quibble:

I would say, instead, “slow and careful change,” in the finest sense of those words. In other words, I can support in theory someone sincerely wanting change but who wants that change to be accomplished with thoughtful care to prevent unforeseen consequences. Sadly, far too often, even such sincere conservatism is an unconscious (or semi-conscious) disguise for “as little change as I can possibly get away with” or even “change, but only after I’m dead.” But there is such a thing as sincere conservatism–it’s’ just that most self-proclaimed conservatives aren’t actually practicing it. Most of them, the vast majority, I’d say, are more like the “reactionaries” you’re distinguishing them from, whom I’m labeling as “greedy selfish racists.”

8

Agree completely that the current US strain of “conservatism” hasn’t been anything but reactionary for a decade or two. With much of that reaction being race-based, and the rest being naked selfishness raised as the highest ideal.

I have decried many times the fact the MSM continues to legitimize this reactionary crap by using what’s become the mealie-mouthed term “conservative” to whitewash that reality. It’s also the reason I have stopped using the terms “Republican” or “R” and now refer to them exclusively as the Reactionary Wacko Traitor party or RWT and their adherents as RWTs.

We both agree there could be a sincere conservatism. But we also agree that the glacial pace of change that entails will doom the current and next several generations of the downtrodden to continue in that status. The more progressive amongst us, including me, are not that patient. And frankly, neither are many of the downtrodden themselves. With potentially explosive consequences.

Further, an intellectually honest aversion to experiment unless any/all unforeseen consequences are mitigated amounts to saying the consequences of current policy are so close to optimal that the odds of harmful change far exceed the odds of beneficial change.

The degree of willful ignorance required to believe the current situation is close to optimal when far better examples exist around the world for the taking puts the lie to the idea of “intellectual honesty” at the core of that aversion.

If society is to be anything but a sordid brawl over the few scraps Nature provides, intellectual honesty must be at the core of our societal, political, and economic decision-making.

This is the origin of the aphorism that “reality has a liberal bias”. And also Fani Williams’ recent dig at Johnson (paraphrasing) that “You can ignore reality. But reality will not ignore you.”

Once a faction abandons intellectual honesty as a core virtue, they’re simply off on a spleen-fueled voyage of destruction. The Ken Paxton acquittal yesterday is an example of that: naked power can remake the human part of reality. For awhile. As AGW (and King Canute) demonstrates, naked power cannot alter physical reality but a smidgen.

As so aptly demonstrated in Ukraine today, it takes two participants to make peace, but only one to make war.

9

Right. I would have said “resistance to change,” implying that change is not necessarily bad, but gradual and careful change is preferable to sudden and revolutionary change.

This conservative attitude is reflected in maxims like

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

“Be not the first by whom the new is tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.”

“Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”

It’s an area where, in a healthy and functioning society, conservatives and liberals/progressives would provide useful checks and balances on one another.

10

Unfortunately as a political philosophy in practice that turns into obstructionism. It becomes the excuse to oppose the other side when desired, while ignored for popular radicalism.

11

Are there any political philosophies that don’t have a “dark side” or a tendency to turn problematic when taken too far or implemented poorly?

12

Right, the hijack/hostile takeover of the concept of “conservative” was almost entirely unresisted whether internally from the Establishment (who arrogantly thought they could use this phenomenon to achieve profit and power while ruling the upstarts with their superior intellect), or from the opposition, or from those who would be calling the plays.

And yes, you do need a healthy, intellectually honest dynamic of stability vs. change wherein you accept the universal reality of change, but argue on how to manage it to avoid instability, and where the sides will be in a position to keep one another honest when either starts heading to the dark side.

In the past, the system generally worked on the matters of change in part by (a) granting either of the sides one or a number of things they would not have to yield on, for now, (b) accepting that most change would be achieved through piecemeal incrementalism, on the lookout for “the right time for it”. However as LSLGuy mentions the problem is that for some cases the “right time for it” never seems to come.

13

In my view, the unhealthy aspect of the modern GOP is that they’re not content to advocate for their positions, and allow votes to decide the question. You want lower corporate taxes, less environmental protection, and an absurdly funded military? Fine. But don’t block appointments, suppress voter turnout, and use every procedural trick in the book to prevent a losing vote. So, yes, their ideas are bad in my opinion, but their failure to allow government to function is worse.

14

This is a consequence of their corrupt “policies,” not a fundamental problem with conservatism as an ideology.

The fundamental problem with the ideology is that it is, in a reductive term, white supremacist.

White supremacy worked while they had the votes. Now they no longer have the prospect of continuing to win elections supporting that ideology, so they have branched out into the anti-democratic measures you cite.

But these are two separate, if aligned, problems: fundamental ideological corruption bolstered by anti-democratic methods of political support.

15

I don’t believe a healthy GOP is possible anymore. I abandoned the GOP on a temporary basis in 2016 not only because I couldn’t stomach Trump but because I thought he’d be bad for the country. It was my hope that the GOP would come to their senses, and I was hopeful on January 6th, 2020 that they would finally see the light, but I ended up abandoning the party forever when they started pretending what happened at the capitol was no big deal. But then I’ve always been a bit of a weirdo as far as Republicans go in that I never cared about the culture war baloney. Gay rights? I’ve never been in opposition. War on drugs? It’s wasteful and harmful. About the only thing I have in common with a lot of the right is our stance on the right to own firearms.

To say the GOP is toxic is obvious. What do they ever stand for these days? People like Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gaetz, and Lauren Boebert are the face of the party these days. Do any of these individuals write or sponsor bills to help their constituents? Other than fighting against “wokism,” critical race theory, the gay agenda, or Bud Light what is it they actually stand for? Well, there’s always Donald Trump. The truth is the Republicans might as well change the name of their party to the Trump Party. Trumpets? He is the party. Remove him and you’ve got nothing.

16

I disagree. In a philosophical sense, actual conservatism is more of a “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” mentality than anything else. And in a healthy, functioning democracy, serves as a useful and necessary brake against the more wild enthusiasms of progressives.

The problem is as I see it, is that today’s GOP isn’t conservative, they’re reactionary. They’re not looking to keep the current status quo and serving as a sort of brake on change. Instead, they’re actually trying to revert to the status quo ante, and what’s worse, to a status quo ante that never existed. So it’s in many ways worse than even mere reactionary-ism, in that they’re trying to back up in a different direction than what there actually was in history.

17

That’s sort of true.

But the decision about what “ain’t broke” is taken by the conservatives. And in their mind, rampant structural racism, police violence, misogyny, raging increasing economic inequality, etc., is “not broke” and therefore doesn’t need fixing on any timeline, much less an urgent one.

“Ain’t broke” need intellectual honesty, not mere selfish defense of current privilege. Once they’ve comprehensively checked intellectual honesty and moral grounding at the door, all that’s left is mere selfish defense of historical privilege.

And that is politically, economically, and morally bankrupt.

18

If they actually started believing in and working towards true conservative policies and agendas they might be able to rise again. I found this list from 2018, posted by a Republican House member.

Core Principles of Conservatism

  • Individual Freedom…
  • Limited Government. …
  • The Rule of Law. …
  • Peace through Strength. …
  • Fiscal Responsibility. …
  • Free Markets. …
  • Human Dignity.

Individual freedom means letting people make their own decisions about just about everything that doesn’t involve breaking the law.

Limited government means keep your laws out of my business, my bedroom, and my body. While you’re at it, keep your religion out of my government and laws. You want religion in public life? There is one bit no one of any faith (or no faith) will probably argue against: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The rule of law means holding people responsible if they break the law, even if they’re rich, famous, powerful, or used to be president.

Peace through strength means supporting the military. Maybe even promoting people even if you’re mad about some military policies that are no business of the government (see limited government).

Fiscal responsibility means working towards smaller budgets without using cuts to exclusively punish people you don’t like. It also means not holding the economy hostage when you get butthurt about something.

Free markets means let the marketplace sort itself out. Don’t use the government to punish businesses you don’t agree with unless they are in some way breaking the law. (See limited government, individual freedom, rule of law.)

Human dignity means that each and every human deserves the same basic rights and treatment. Even if that human is female, gay, a person of color, a foreigner, a Democrat, poor, homeless, or any other designation that makes them different from you.

Bunus!!
Family values means doing what you can to support families, not punishing people with families you don’t like and making sure only families that look like yours count as “real families”.

These are conservative values I could vote for. But as long as Republicans remain racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, petty, vindictive, Christian fundamentalist assholes there isn’t much hope for them.

19

I would disagree with that. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t have to mean smaller budgets. Go ahead and pass some new entitlement, like a prescription drug benefit for seniors. The fiscally responsible approach is to cut something else, or to raise revenue.

Fiscal responsibility means realistic accounting and paying the bills, not pie-in-the-sky projections and running up debt.

20

What I’m seeking to argue, though, is that actual conservatism hasn’t really existed in this country for at least a few decades (and in the minds of some longtime GOPers, who used to be conservative Democrats in the 1960s, has never existed). It’s just a respectable coverup concealing their true controlling ideology, which is racism (and sexism, etc.). They are hearkening back to a glorious time in our past, but not because it was truly glorious (or even existed) but because rich, straight, white, Christian males had all the power, and that is what they’re promoting as a virtue.

Trump has distilled a conservative slogan, Make America Great Again, that is nakedly reactionary but which on its face, many conservatives support. Do you remember getting into arguments at first (2015, 2016) with GOPers who were naively supporting him back then (and may have since seen the light, or maybe not) along the lines of “What’s wrong with making America great again?” I do. I remember trying to explain that America has always had serious problems, and that there is no time that a MAGA supporter can possibly name that I would like to return to, all in all, and if they do, they’re bound to name a time of repulsive blatant discrimination against someone, quite possibly myself.

Some GOPers have come to see the problem with “Make America Great Again” but most continue to dismiss the problem as a rhetorical flourish and they support the concept.

Sure, we need some kind of check of wild-eyed radical progressivism, but that already exists within the Democratic party at this point. Very few GOPers now align themselves with a conservative philosophy who have not tainted themselves by allying with the disgusting, openly racist authoritarianism of MAGA. If there’s a sincere conservative out there who has called MAGA out, they’re dead men walking. They don’t have a party but they refuse to recognize that fact.

Take Romney. He has almost literally no path forward at this point. He would quite possibly lose a GOP primary in Utah–a Mormon elder who ran for President as a business-friendly hardline conservative–so he quit politics. Not to do anything specific, mind you. Just because he had nowhere to go. That tells you all you need to know about conservatives in the GOP–they’re welcome only if they support open white supremacy.