Red Mosquito

Because of his 4chan friends.

Though I don't think Burt is wrong.

Mickey wrote:Because of his 4chan friends.

Mickey wrote:Though I don't think Burt is wrong.

Evergreen posts.

4/5 wrote:

McParadigm wrote: I don’t wanna get into a housing market debate, but I’d be curious about your response to the stated question (if the Republican Party sees another poor election result in 2022, what platform and/or ideology changes could/should they adopt in order to pursue a national majority).

I think they're all in on Trumpism at least in the near-term. As badly as 2018 and to a lesser extent 2020 went for them, they still have a lot of state governments, they get to redraw a lot of congressional maps, the Senate still overrepresents states that are Republican strongholds, and Trump just nominated a ton of young very conservative judges. I know you know all of these things, but I think that it might be true that they can double and triple down and alienate more and more of the population and yet still have significant ways to influence policy and remain competitive even with a shrinking base.

This is all true, especially if the party is content with the ability to disrupt but not necessarily decide national policy. But this question starts with a hypothetical midterm disappointment in 2022. Wouldn't party leaders eventually have to worry that such a trend of victories might embolden Democrats on subjects like voter rights, the electoral college, Puerto Rico / DC statehood and filibuster reform? And indicate a future where Democrats are regularly replacing justices?

That is to say, I agree with you that they can continue to have a large, even outsized impact with Trump-style populism. And I agree that Trumpism is the party's current attitudinal direction. But I'm not really posing this question about the Republican Party that is...I'm asking how the party will change or respond (and how it should change or respond) if it faces continued successive electoral losses. Do they layer the fortifications in red states and give up on some places that used to be battleground areas? Do they look for new ways to appeal to suburban voters? What would or should those ways be?

Part of why I think it's worth asking this question is this: Republican victories in 2014 and 2016 were heavily dependent on suburban moderate support and low Democrat/left-leaning voter turnout (in 2014, for example, Republicans won the popular vote by five million while nearly six million more left-leaning active voters stayed home than did conservatives), and it seems likely that continued adherence to Trump-style Republicanism will continue to drive Democrat turnout up and turn many moderates off. So while the midterm map looks good for them and district redraws will continue to provide advantages in key areas...a disappointment in 2022 is not by any measure impossible. I would assume that if they perform well, Trumpism is here to stay for decades. If they don't....what then? That's the question I'm asking.

As long as Trump is alive I think it's going to be very difficult for any significant pivot away from Trumpism.

I agree with this, and it is in fact the reason that I split my question between predicting how they will respond and giving people a chance to say how they think the party should respond.

Your other question is what should they do. That's a lot tougher. I'll have to think about it and I'll do my best to respond today or tomorrow, but it's hard for me to imagine that any shift towards moderation would benefit them in the short term.

I don't think that an evolving of the party platform in the wake of a hypothetical third electoral loss would necessarily require moderation. It might require new proposed solutions, and an adjustment of which issues to elevate/prioritize...but I don't think moderation is a prerequisite to change.

BurtReynolds wrote:The easy answer is just to wait. Republicans are leaderless at the moment. People in late democracy vote for personalities, not policies.

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: "Conservative globalism" is a recipe to lose for the next 4000 years.

Why do you say that

What does that mean to you? Bush era neoliberalism? Who is out there clamoring for more free trade agreements, pipelines in the middle east and looser border protections? Populist movements all over the world have risen up against this.

Of course, that would ensure their war chests are fully stocked by donors, so in that respect I suppose it would help Republicans, but they can deliver more globalism to their donors while promising isolationism to the plebs like they always do.

tragabigzanda wrote:I've not read a book or anything, but in my mind "conservative globalism" is some approximation of:

-Let China handle automation, we'll let US workers use their hands and 2-year degrees
-Restructured trade deals that deliver the US more long-term ROI
-Ship our shitty products overseas (including fossil fuels)
-Actively encourage brain drain from other countries to the US
-Use Paris Climate Accord and similar deals to persuade other countries into mfg and energy systems that give the US the economic upper hand
-Encourage innovation in the US by drastically offering startup/R&D tax credits

I may be turned around on the term, and I don't necessarily want to see all these things happen. But to McP's original question, I fail to see how this wouldn't gain traction once the culture wars prove fruitless

What does any of this have to do with winning elections? How do you sell any of this?

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I've not read a book or anything, but in my mind "conservative globalism" is some approximation of:

-Let China handle automation, we'll let US workers use their hands and 2-year degrees
-Restructured trade deals that deliver the US more long-term ROI
-Ship our shitty products overseas (including fossil fuels)
-Actively encourage brain drain from other countries to the US
-Use Paris Climate Accord and similar deals to persuade other countries into mfg and energy systems that give the US the economic upper hand
-Encourage innovation in the US by drastically offering startup/R&D tax credits

I may be turned around on the term, and I don't necessarily want to see all these things happen. But to McP's original question, I fail to see how this wouldn't gain traction once the culture wars prove fruitless

What does any of this have to do with winning elections? How do you sell any of this?

Burt, this hypothetical begins with "what if the current, Trump-designed GOP doesn't start winning on a national level?" Under those circumstances, what do you think the Republican Party ought to do to reverse the trend?

To go back a little on what I said about asking a democrat for advice, a blueprint for winning elections as Republicans can probably be found somewhere between Tucker Carlson (who is already way ahead of the rest of the Republican party) and Scott Alexander:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a ... epublicans

BurtReynolds wrote:To go back a little on what I said about asking a democrat for advice, a blueprint for winning elections as Republicans can probably be found somewhere between Tucker Carlson (who is already way ahead of the rest of the Republican party) and Scott Alexander:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a ... epublicans

You'll have to be more specific about how Tucker Carlson could represent a change from current state, or which aspects of his worldview you feel are currently excluded from the Republican agenda but likely to win national elections. Because the first things that come to my mind when I hear that name are the feverish doubling down on culture wars, calling Biden's love for his wife "as real as climate change," that time a few weeks ago when he said he couldn't find any evidence that QAnon theories even exist, and questions like "how exactly is diversity our strength" posed nightly.

I know that beneath the stupidity above he has more nuanced politics...I seem to remember that he defended the ACA and opposed a lot of Trump's corporate tax repeals. But I need clarification as to which aspects of those politics you think create a more victorious Republican Party.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:To go back a little on what I said about asking a democrat for advice, a blueprint for winning elections as Republicans can probably be found somewhere between Tucker Carlson (who is already way ahead of the rest of the Republican party) and Scott Alexander:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a ... epublicans

You'll have to be more specific about how Tucker Carlson could represent a change from current state, or which aspects of his worldview you feel are currently excluded from the Republican agenda but likely to win national elections. Because the first things that come to my mind when I hear that name are the feverish doubling down on culture wars, calling Biden's love for his wife "as real as climate change," that time a few weeks ago when he said he couldn't find any evidence that QAnon theories even exist, and questions like "how exactly is diversity our strength" posed nightly.

I know that beneath the stupidity above he has more nuanced politics...I seem to remember that he defended the ACA and opposed a lot of Trump's corporate tax repeals. But I need clarification as to which aspects of those politics you think create a more victorious Republican Party.

You kinda answered the question for me, but much of what he is doing is the same things suggested in the article I linked to. It's interesting to hear him in debates and interviews. He's much more "mask off" in those, and doesn't really care who knows it. There was one in particular I had in mind, but I'll have to dig it up later.

Yeah, I sort of know that’s the case but haven’t had any exposure. Which is why I say that when you use the name Tucker Carlson, it has different connotations for me than it does for you, and that gap in specificities prevents me from having a holistic understanding of what you mean.

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: What does any of this have to do with winning elections? How do you sell any of this?

"The Moderate New Deal"

tragabigzanda wrote:Oh good a substack about weaponizing "class"

Dude. Come on.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:Because of his 4chan friends.

Mickey wrote:Though I don't think Burt is wrong.

Evergreen posts.

When it works it works.

The other obvious problem is that “cancel culture” can’t be defeated with legislation. Dr Seuss’s books were pulled by his own estate. Gina Carano was fired by Disney. You can’t vote them out. And I know that conservatives generally believe that government isn’t the answer to your problems, but rallying around a grievance that is societal rather than political makes it hard to build a legislative platform that will carry you forward.

Part of the strategy is to cultivate a reality in which those problems are actually legislative. I.E. just spread around the message that Biden himself actually pulled Dr Seuss books, and anyone who tells you differently can't be trusted. So in that narrative, voting people in/out of office actually addresses those grievances.