From an exchange in the Stupid Republican Idea thread:
@kaylasdad99, this exchange has me a little puzzled. You say you are a conservative, but object to the radical MAGA being referred to as conservatives. I get you are trying to protect the label, to defend a space for people who are moderate right versus the people backing Trump and Boebert and Greene, et al.
You say there are a lot more of you than them.
So the question now arises why do the majority of conservatives allow the minority MAGA right control the Republican Party?
Do you not consider yourself a Republican?
That would raise more questions, but the key question remains - Why do the majority of moderate conservatives let the minority of extremist reactionaries control and dominate the conservative side of the political conversation?
And to answer your question, American politics is thought of as a line. There are two halves: liberal and conservative.
Other categories are subsets. Just like conservative includes “reactionary” and “fascist”, liberal includes “progressive”, “socialist”, and “communist”. I’m not happy about that, either. The manifestation of communism as an actual government is by no means liberal. It’s totalitarian. But that’s the framework of thought in this country.
How so? Putting aside the squishiness of definitions of “conservative”, there is a legitimate question there about the complicity of non-MAGA Republicans have continuously refused to answer about their continued support of Trump and MAGA.
The problem with the “but those guys in power are not really conservative or Republican” argument is the total absence of the obvious follow-up, “…and thus if they win we will leave in protest, because we realize that those who are supposed to represent us actually don’t.” If the Radical Right loses, the so-called rational Conservative can say “See! at least our hands are clean.”, but if the Radical Right attaints and/or keeps power the so-called rational Conservative tells them “We stayed out of your way, and will gladly take whatever you give us for doing so.”
May an outsider ask about structures and mechanisms? Just how does a particular group gain influence and power within one of your parties - and hold on to it?
In the UK, both major parties are on the lookout for "entryism’ - a concerted effort by a minority to bring in new members and take over constituency parties and then the national leadership organisations - but how’s it done when you have such seemingly diffuse intra-party structures?
Isn’t it simply that MAGAs win elections, and can cause existing office-holders to get primaried out at their next election? That’s the threat, isn’t it, that the Trumpists (which I am conflating with MAGAs) will viciously go after any Republican who comes out against them? And this threat and the fear arising from it belie the assertion that there are more traditional conservatives than MAGAs within the Republican party, or at least more of them that vote and are active.
That’s certainly part of it, but then you have supposedly “traditional” conservatives who are in office who vote against their supposed principles on a few things in favor of the MAGA wing.
I suppose there’s the argument that they need to do what their constituents will want, else they may be voted out, but is there a meaningful distinction in how they are labeled if there is no effective difference in their actions? How “radical” can they really be if the supposed mainstream/traditional ones vote along with them all the time?
Yep, that’s part 2 of the same dynamic. What good is it to say you’re a traditional conservative if you give so much ground to the MAGAs that you are indistinguishable from them?
The question remains, if the “real” Conservatives end up voting the MAGA line (for the most part), then who are they lying to-their constituents, themselves, or both?
But there are conservatives who do go against MAGA. Adam Kinzinger spoke at the DNC. They are few in number, as too many people who can see right through Trump go along for personal benefit, but they do exist.
And likewise the constituents themselves - if they are supporting the MAGA conservatives in the primaries, isn’t that how the mainstream gets defined in the first place - by the voters themselves?
No doubt, but that’s not the question/debate. The question/debate is whether or not MAGA are “real” conservatives or if they are instead fringe radicals who don’t represent the mainstream of conservatism and are actually outnumbered on the right.
Nobody is saying they don’t exist. What is being said is that they are not an effective majority. In fact, they seem to going the way of the Log Cabin Republicans.
sadly, this is probably true. I consider myself a moderate conservative. I will NOT be voting for Trump. I consider him a true threat to our democratic system. There are some of us left, the National Review is very critical of Trump. Don’t seem to be enough to affect the way the Republican party is heading unfortunately.
Unless they are allowed to be in the party (much like the Log Cabin Republicans), just to give a false narrative that today’s Republican Party is more open than they appear.