‘We have to blow it up’: can never-Trumpers retake the Republican party?
The former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney “hopes to be able to rebuild” the Republican party after Donald Trump leaves the political stage. Mitt Romney, the retiring Utah senator and former presidential nominee, reportedly hopes so too.
Among other prominent Republicans who refuse to bow the knee, the former Maryland governor Larry Hogan is running for a US Senate seat in a party led by Trump but insists he can be part of a post-Trump GOP.
Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chair turned MSNBC host, advocated more dramatic action: “We have to blow this crazy-ass party up and have it regain its senses, or something else will be born out of it. There are only two options here. Hogan will be a key player in whatever happens. Liz Cheney, [former congressmen] Adam Kinzinger and Joe Walsh – all of us who have been pushed aside and fortunately were not infected with Maga, we will have something to say about what happens on 6 November.”
Trump happened because large segments of US voters feel disenfranchised and resentful, as they feel they have been left behind and that their lives have been made worse by the policies of the political establishment and experts. If said political establishment and the experts want to end the Trump movement and prevent something similar from happening again, they're going to have to address the concerns of dissatisfied voters. I don't really think either party knows how to go about doing that.
I think part of the reason for that is there's still significant discussion about what has caused so many Americans to become so unhappy with leadership, and you can't really come up with a solution until you correctly identify the problem. I still don't think the experts have a very good grasp on why Americans are upset. Until they figure it out, they can't come up with a solution, and until they come up with a solution, movements like Trumpism are still very possible.
It's really not hard to identify why, but billionaires will spend their life savings convincing people that late stage capitalism and oligarchy work.
Trump is happening because far right republicans realized after Watergate that if they wanted to get away with crimes in the future, that they needed to have news that presents "alternate" facts that are favorable to their narrative or that would at the least muddy the waters. Roger Ailes his plan worked basically.
Without censoring his appearances, Trump comes across as petulant/weak/selfish/stupid/hateful/... Without censoring his history, republican voters would have known that he was a serial scam artist, serial adulterer, ... Basically without that alternate fact media supporting rightwing skullduggery, there would never have been a president Trump.
Imo it's nonsense to claim that Trump getting elected, is happening because voters are angry because of mysterious reasons that no one can figure out, when those voters are so misinformed that they consistently vote against their own interests and believe stupid conspiracy theories that are being pushed to rile them up against the "other". As long as that many people live in an alternate reality based on lies and hate, there is no helping them. So the challenge becomes: how do you bring them out of it and how do you prevent it from happening again in the future.
That's not exactly what I am saying. It's more that there isn't yet a consensus of what the root problem is. There are a lot of theories, sure, like yours. That's one theory, but, confident though you may be that that is the exact problem, not everyone agrees, or at least they think there's more to it than that.
I think there might be some truth to your theory, but I don't agree with the idea that these people are essentially doing fine, but they've been brainwashed into thinking they're not doing fine. That it's all just a result of some kind of mass hypnosis. That kind of erases the very real problems that many of these people do face.
One thing we can all agree on is that the problem that upsets voters has nothing to do with lack of healthcare, inability to purchase a first home, lack of a decent social safety net nor anything to do with inflation, money in politics or dark money corporate pak donations
The new left party that forms in the wake of the Republican implosion will rise out of the growing union movement that is already organizing to address that fundamental problem.
At what point will voting for that new left party become optimal?
always has been
when they reach 33%
when Republicans reach 25%
when Republicans are literally gone
other
If you plan to wait until you can vote for them in a national election then you're missing the point.
The democracy you're looking for is built from the bottom up, starting with your coworkers.
The first vote you should be concerned with is a card check election to unionize your workplace.
In that case, same question, but for a small local race.
Same answer, smaller scale.
So then at what stage of unionization is it safe to support what would currently be a spoiler party?
By the time the union party exists the Republicans will have already collapsed into irrelevance.
Stop looking for excuses not to help before then.
So when Republicans are literally gone, then?
Allow me to reiterate in case you missed it the first time:
I don't disagree, but that was kinda avoiding my actual question.
That's because the question is not only entirely unrelated to the task at hand, it is a thought-terminating cliché that I refuse to take seriously.
The concept of "election spoilers" is designed to keep people from engaging with politics that lie outside the range of acceptable discourse dictated by the two-party system.
Now that anti-genocide politics is no longer acceptable to the two party system, it's long past time to stop taking the establishment seriously when it threatens you to support it or else.
So then maybe it's "always has been". ;-)
When they run candidates for lower offices in "safe" districts, and can win seats there. At that point, they can force the Dems into coalition building.
Or when the Republican party has about as much influence as the Libertarian and Constitution parties. Either/or.
This also applies to much of the left. It’s because the US is an oligarchy and doesn’t have representation that is proportional
People are downvoting you but it's correct. The left has no representation in this country. It's just far-right and right when you go to the polls.
Oh they fucking know. Say it with me:
I don’t think anyone really hates Jo Millionaire. Jo, the master electrician that lives down the street and employs 5-10 electricians from apprentice to employee-master is a millionaire and contributes positively to their local community. Creating jobs through helping people with their electrical projects, spending in the local economy, etc. And that’s a realistic goal for their apprentices to aspire and work towards.
Unfortunately that’s who republican voters think they’re voting to support.
But they’ve been duped; they’re actually voting to support the Billionaire Aristocrats of the world who pull up the ladder behind them through monetary influence of politics and not paying a damn dime on their ‘income’ (because they’re “borrowing against” their unfathomable hoard).
“They” know why the voters and disenfranchised and that’s their fucking plan—because it keeps them employed and wining and dining fancy with their Aristocrat puppet masters.
I think that's true, but some Jo millionaires get rich enough to become part of the billionaire aristocrats. That's the goal, isn't it? Don't most business owners want to grow their business and their wealth, seemingly indefinitely? Maybe that's why the millionaires are such strong supporters of the billionaires: because they ultimately aspire to be among them. Obviously, most won't be able to achieve that, but they aspire to it nonetheless.