Our current challenging social and political situation is driven by the root causes of individualism, skepticism secularism, inadequate myths, human nature and insecurity. In a word: negativity. Civility embraces constructiveness, intentionality and public-spiritedness as clearly “positive” values. It is also based upon the “positive” values of human dignity, respect and acceptance. Is it reasonable to be so positive in a time of negativity driven by politicians, the media and our fellow citizens? The answer is “yes”. We have chosen to emphasize our challenges rather than our accomplishments. Those who pursue Civility need to be aware of the reality of modern progress, conditions in all areas of life and realistic opportunities for change.
Overall Good News
Improvements in all areas of life since the 1976 bicentennial are amazing!
Civility is a popular subject to talk about and bemoaning the loss of Civility has become a national pastime. But the trick is to “do something about it”. We have personal, political, strategic, educational, policy and structural solutions to consider.
Politics
Once citizens see that they are treated like victims and encouraged to adopt a victim position by politicians, they can “turn the table” and demand to be treated as powerful voters given real answers.
Civilization and daily life are guided by unspoken norms and beliefs. We have experienced significant changes in the past century that undermined the consensus view and now requires individuals to consciously consider a greater share of their daily lives. We have not reached a new consensus and may not do so anytime soon. As we work through these differences we need to reinvest in Civility skills, habits and understanding. Civility helps us individually, in groups and as a society to interact effectively despite our differences. We don’t need perfection or infinite improvement, but we need to invest in Civility and use its power as a self-reinforcing system or virtuous cycle to guide us into the future.
In order to solve our political problems, we need to face and solve the 6 underlying root causes. They are interconnected. They can be addressed mostly outside of the political process. This is cause for great hope and optimism.
Many Americans today cry out for “respect”. They see a social, economic and political system that does not work for them. A political party that really understands this situation would take strong action, IMHO. Some thoughts …
I’ve outlined other policy steps below that might convince the two-thirds of the electorate that are working and middle class that they are the priority.
This 2017 bestseller was applauded by the WSJ, The Economist, Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam, JD Vance (as a complement to Hillbilly Elegy) and Barrack Obama. It tells the story of Janesville, Wisconsin as a General Motors assembly plant with 3,000 workers was permanently closed in the turmoil of the Great Recession. It focuses on the impact on real people and the community’s response. The author concludes that neither the liberal response of job training nor the conservative response of economic redevelopment incentives was adequate to meet the community’s needs. What could work?
Wealthy individuals and families have great wealth to protect. As a nation and society, we have an obligation to eliminate this concern from being a primary role in our political decisions. We can set reasonable limits on the maximum contributions required from prosperous individuals in our society.
Google AI Summary of Republican Party Opposition to Civility
Based on the provided search results, opposition from some members or factions of the Republican Party toward certain “civility movements” often stems from the view that such movements are used to silence legitimate political opposition, stifle aggressive accountability, or protect a “woke agenda”.
The arguments and perspectives from the search results suggest several reasons for this opposition:
View of Civility as Political Suppression: Some conservatives argue that calls for “civility” are a tool used by the left to de-legitimize passionate, tough, and direct opposition to their policies.
“Us-Versus-Them” Mentality: There is a belief among some, reflected in remarks by leaders like Mike Pence, that political rivals are not just wrong, but actively advancing an immoral or dangerous agenda, making compromise or polite discourse feel counterproductive to them.
Belief in Confrontational Politics: Many, particularly in the populist wing of the party, believe in aggressive, combative tactics that grab attention and stir up the base, rather than polite, quiet debate.
Perception of Double Standards: Some conservatives feel that the mainstream media and cultural institutions enforce a double standard, demanding civility from the right while overlooking harsh rhetoric or actions from the left.
Focus on Radical Change: Some Republicans view the current political climate as existential, where they are fighting to protect traditional values against rapid, fundamental societal changes, making “polite disagreement” feel inadequate.
Distrust of Elite Narratives: There is a strong feeling that the “civility movement” is promoted by the same “educated elite” that they believe has rigged the system, and that this movement is a way to stop conservatives from challenging that system.
These factors suggest that opposition to the “civility movement” is often not an opposition to polite behavior itself, but a rejection of what they perceive as a strategic tool to weaken their political power and silence their opposition.
Civility promotes communications as the only means to recognize existing or potential common ground. Civility does not prefer moderate political positions or the “conventional wisdom” of a time or political party. Civility does not oppose radically different positions on political issues, only the expression of positions which demonize the opposite position or its supporters. Robust debate is an essential part of what was once quaintly called “civil discourse”. Republicans are mistakenly merging Civility with the alleged restriction of “free speech” by some universities, organizations and media outlets. Civility requires partisans to clearly express their values, interests and policies in order to identify potential shared interests and evaluate differences.
Civility is based upon the values of human dignity, respect and constructiveness. Participants are encouraged to set aside political differences and respect their common interests and humanity. The effective techniques of Civility separate the person from the policy. The Civility movement accepts and embraces differences as natural and unavoidable. https://tomkapostasy.com/2025/03/02/our-political-differences-are-not-going-away-and-thats-ok/
The Civility approach emphasizes rational conversation, interaction, evaluation and compromise. It does not discourage passionate expression of interests. It recognizes people as thinking, feeling and doing creatures. It argues that lasting resolution of policy disagreements requires better understanding and full participation of all interested parties. Short-term tactical victories are unlikely to be sustained without some “meeting of the minds”. This warning is especially relevant at the state and local level of politics and in daily life.
Civility is based upon the traditional values of human dignity, respect, acceptance, responsibility, constructiveness, intentionality and public-spiritedness. It is firmly grounded in the traditions of Western civilization and liberal democracy. Civility is not biased towards a far-left, postmodernist, secular society free of social norms and community. It recognizes the tension between the individual and the community, traditional and modern (WEIRD) and postmodern values but remains agnostic regarding the best solution other than the preservation of a communications and problem-solving framework. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7heEBq7oZnMvbSbJa/weird-morality#:~:text=purview%20of%20morality.-,Moral%20Foundations%20Theory,sanctity/degradation
The populist wing of the Republican party sounds like the far-left wing of the Democratic party. Civility is a tool of the other guys, unfair, biased, inadequate, ineffective, unreliable, soft, emotional and too slow. The Civility approach doesn’t support the simple polarizing approach of modern politics. It emphasizes facts, logic, values clarification, optimal means, compromises, discovery, short and long run trade-offs, all of the tools of the modern negotiator’s kitbag. It accepts that profound differences may remain in our political, economic and social realms. It is fundamentally a “glass half-full” approach. Civility argues that its approach is much more effective in the long run in finding reasonable solutions, minimizing deep pain for those who disagree and maintaining relationships that promote future solutions.
Overall, at the same core 2.5% growth rate seen for the last decade.
Labor productivity growth down a bit from the pandemic recovery bump.
Median wage growth remains at 2%, down a bit from pre-pandemic 2.5%.
Job growth is very weak. Typically, this indicates a coming recession, but the reduction of the immigration labor supply makes historical comparisons difficult.
Unemployment rate remains at historically low 4.5% but it has been increasing for more than 2 years.
The “underemployed” rate shows the same relative level and trend.
Labor force participation hit record levels after the pandemic and has remained there.
The personal savings rate is low, a bit below the pandemic and trending slightly downward.
Mortgage rates remain elevated, around 6.5%.
New home sales are pretty stable, at pre-pandemic level.
Housing prices jumped from $320,000 to $440,000 after the pandemic. They have fallen back by 5% in 4 years.
The US stock market continues to climb.
Corporate profits have roughly doubled since before the pandemic.
Manufacturing employment continues to decline.
Exports are up 50% and still growing slowly.
Imports also increased by 50%.
Businesses continue to invest.
Business confidence remains weak.
Businesses have maintained their target inventory to sales ratios.
Consumer confidence is down and weak.
Federal debt % of GDP remains at 120%, up from 105%.
Value of the US dollar increased by 10-12% after the pandemic, but has retreated by 6%.
The Federal Reserve Board has reduced interest rates by 1.5%.
Core inflation rate has levelled off near 3%.
The GDP Price deflator measure of inflation is a little better, approaching 2.5%, but also level or growing.
Misery index is up a bit at 7.5%.
Summary
Stock market is solidly up together with corporate profits and business investment.
Inflation and unemployment are up. Budget deficits and debt remain high. Dollar value is down. Manufacturing employment is down. Business and consumer confidence is down.
Other measures are comparable to the 2023-2024 Biden economy base; not improving as often claimed.
The US economy is increasingly resilient and not easily changed by small policy choices or “jawboning”.
Immigration has become a strong winning issue for right-wing parties around the world and an organizing issue for extreme right-wing parties. Why? What should centrist and left-wing parties do?
Accelerants
There are more immigrants. Economic, religious, social and political immigrants. More international conflicts, civil wars and gang violence. Continued huge gaps in living standards between countries. Global communications and transportation networks that make migration possible. The demand for in-migration to developed countries is very high.
In a world of rapid change, slowing growth and religious doubt, citizens of advanced nations are insecure.
Politicians have learned that a simplistic polarization of left versus right is much easier to manage than “solving problems” and have increasingly framed all politics as “us versus them”.
In a world of skepticism and loss of certainty caused by the undermining of religion, progress, science, socialism, fascism, or nationalism as a definite answer we increasingly turn to “identity” as our rock. Blame Rene Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” insight or Martin Luther’s religious individualism or libertarian economic individualism or countercultural social individualism or the “therapeutic society” triggered by Sigmund Freud.
We all need a basis for our cognitive consistency. Today, our personal identity is raised as a mini-God of great importance. We merge political, cultural and personal identities. We look to national, cultural, racial, class, professional, fraternal, social, alumni or corporate identities for meaning. Identity is MUCH more important today. It is subject to political and media influence and manipulation.
Moral Foundations Framework
Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues sought to define the core, inherent, inherited moral, political and religious frameworks that we all have. They contrasted traditional and modern moral beliefs. They noted that “modern” beliefs are extraordinary and WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic. They combined social science testing, statistics and evolutionary psychology to determine 5-8 widely held moral beliefs that “make sense” based on their interpretation of human and cultural evolution. They noted that liberals emphasize just the two values of care and fairness, while conservatives add the values of loyalty, authority, purity/sanctity, proportionality, ownership and liberty.
I’m insecure, framing politics in simple left versus right, “us versus them” terms and insecure in my identity. I’m sensitive to all of the moral flavors, including loyalty, authority and purity. Immigration is increasing. Illegal immigration is uncontrolled.
What do I see?
Economic threats to jobs, assets and privilege.
Unfair claims on public welfare programs.
Risk of increased crime, disease, drugs and social dysfunction.
Further dilution of and threats against traditional culture by unfamiliar “others”. Different birthplace, nationality, race, religion, class, language and expectations.
Opposition to the “rule of law”, unfairly proposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
A feeling of personal and social violation or invasion by “others”. A loss of control.
A threat to the symbolic nation and national security.
Reasonable people take this perspective. They look at “liberals” who emphasize “immigrant rights” above this reality as insane.
Academic research generally supports the “Moral Foundations Theory” view.
Acknowledge those who feel this threat. Don’t dismiss, discount, demonize or rationalize them or the politicians that support them. Recognize their legitimate concerns.
Focus on the issue of illegal immigration. Solve it. Invest in border controls.
Implement a national ID system that prevents illegal employment.
Enhance the agricultural guest worker program.
Focus on the issue of unlimited asylum seekers. Solve it. Revise standards to be reasonable. Resolve cases within a year. Set a limit. Find ways to “share the love” with other countries.
Support a “points system” that prioritizes “value added” immigrants.
Propose a way like Reagan’s “path to citizenship” for existing illegal immigrants.
Support expulsion of all convicted felony criminals.
Ignore the extremist rhetoric about illegal immigrants.
Highlight Trump’s unwillingness to even discuss a bipartisan solution.
Highlight the much greater importance of national economic success, affordable prices, the rule of law, sustainable democracy and American global interests.
Highlight a political platform of personal and economic opportunity rather than individual “rights”.
Promote immigrant success stories at the working, middle, professional and upper-class levels. Leverage visible sports, arts, media and political figures.
Highlight diverse successful assimilation communities across the United States.
Fine-tune welfare programs to clearly exclude illegal immigrants.
Summary
Leftists often believe that their views are obvious, logical and historically “true”. Caring and Fairness are clearly the ultimate values in modern times. The other values are seen as remnants of the unenlightened past. I believe that the moral values of loyalty, authority and purity are also valid. Principled conservatism is a valid perspective.
It is easy to take an enlightened, universal, abstract, economically disinterested view when someone has the assets and talents valued by our society (standing “privilege” on its head). When an individual is unsure of his prospects (standing John Rawls on his head) in the real world, he is rooted in the familiar world of family, caste, class, neighborhood, culture, social groups and self-interest. Insecurity and threats matter. Politicians in a democratic system should listen and respond.
Immigration is a real threat to a majority of our citizens. We should manage it accordingly.
Only by managing the threat can we invest in the proper care for immigrants as a society.
I addressed this topic 4 years ago. I was less willing to fully accept the right-wing perspective.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat says he began crafting this 2020/2021 book in 2014. He argues that we are stuck in a stagnant society that has lost its ability to reach for the future. Technological, space, business, economics, politics, ideologies, and cultural achievements in the arts, film and music have lost their dynamism. We are pictured as a weak shadow of 1945, 1965 or 1975.
He argues that stagnation eventually leads to decline or disaster. His preferred future contains “growth, innovation, aesthetic reinvention and religious ferment”. Any solution must contain “zeal, coherence, mysticism and futurism”. He outlines several possible paths to decline and further stagnation.
He also describes some potential routes to a renaissance. Modified Islam. African Christianity. Expanded Chinese influence. Massive African migration and impact on Europe. Illiberal democracies like Russia gain favor. Populism governs pragmatically. Local communities flourish in the communitarian model promoted by Patrick Deneen. Nationalism recovers its power. A revised global socialism. Pure scientism. Updated paganism or polytheism. A paradigm shift that makes religion a real option for educated elites, displacing the “materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature”. A religious “great awakening” or new delivery mechanism. A merger of scientific and religious sensibilities that recognize our unique position as self-aware humans on planet earth.
Our columnist and critic evaluates the modern world much too negatively in my view. Despite challenges, the US and global economy is doing very well. It overcame the Great Recession and the Covid Pandemic. It is adjusting to Trump’s “tariff wars”. Growth is solid, trade is growing, employment is up. The business cycle is effectively managed. Productivity growth continues. These economies are resilient, reflected in stock market values. There are greater inequality and rent-seeking, which can be addressed politically.
Europe and other US allies are adjusting to Trump’s “America first” approach. They are adjusting to Russia’s threats and invasion of Ukraine.
Science progresses. Covid solutions. Weight control. Driverless cars. Smart phone capabilities. Artificial intelligence. Robotics. Modern satellite communications. Medicines. Fracking. Nanotechnologies. Green power. Electric cars. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
The ongoing integration of race, class, region and immigrants in the US continues. It’s not perfect but a solid majority embraces the multicultural US. Young Americans only know this positive world.
Many critics agree with Mr. Douthat that the arts and culture have stagnated. I’m not sure that marks “the end of civilization”. Today I have quick access to everything that has been offered for 100 years. We are culturally blessed.
The author invests several pages in analyzing Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 “end of history” claim. He agrees that the Western liberal democracies have fended off the BIG challenges of fascism and communism but notes that new and old critics have returned. He gives Fukuyama a fair treatment and notes his more recent focus on the role of “identity” in shaping political views.
Unfortunately, Mr. Douthat is not interested in refining “liberal democracy” as a solution to our alleged stagnation. He is critical of managerialism, technocracy and modern meritocracy. He sees it as inherently self-interested and narrow. I think that we have no choice but to invest in improving our historical “liberal democracy” framework.
I think the gap between science and the humanities remains even wider than it was in 1959 when CP Snow called out his educated colleagues. We need a way to connect science and religion, politics and people. The “structural” advantages of strong political, social and economic systems are not inherently opposed to human values. We should invest in closing this gap in our universities.
My followers know that I have become a “true believer” in the potential of “civility” to become formally defined and promoted as a shared cultural norm to support our political, social and economic institutions.
I wholeheartedly agree with his two real religious solutions. The default paradigm today is “science versus religion” and “science alone is real”. There is significant scientific and philosophical evidence to overturn this current worldview.
Many of our current challenges exist because we have not revised our laws and political structures to adapt to modern wealth, amoral political actors and media capabilities.
We could choose to invest in economic and breakthrough scientific progress by making political choices.
We could choose to support the modern “therapeutic society” approach of encouraging every child to “live a great life today” in pursuit of their self-actualizing possibilities.
We could invest in improving the productivity of our lagging economic sectors: government, education, health care and not for profits.
We could revise our goals to emphasize quality as equal to quantity.
We could invest in promoting communities of all kinds, not just those local, total communities suggested by Patrick Deneen.
We could do a better job of outlining. defining and communicating to everyone our 5-part political spectrum of left, center-left, independent, center-right and right. Individuals rarely change. We are stuck with each other. How do we effectively structure our political, social and economic systems to accommodate these different views?
Douthat argues that we have stagnated on all dimensions. We need to find a way forward. I agree with 2 of his options and offer a few more possibilities.
The national Republican Party was radicalized or very extreme by 2012. It is MUCH worse today.
Barrels of ink have been spilled describing and analyzing the “Trump phenomenon”. We were collectively shocked in 2016 when he won the presidency. The changes toward extremism, radicalism and the loss of our democratic system have continued. Like the proverbial frogs, we have become accustomed to the onslaught of change. I’ll try to outline and make sense of the mind-boggling transformation of the “party of Lincoln” in my lifetime from Dwight Eisenhower, Dick Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes to Newt Gingrich, Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Steve Wynn, Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. 😦
Context
Pundits blamed the Trump 2016 election on a variety of false or half-true causes. Trump’s brand image and magnetic personality. His direct approach and truthfulness. A victory for the “Tea Party” after the slow Obama economic recovery. Renewed racism triggered by Obama in the White House. A normal left to right political swing. Hillary Clinton’s poor campaign and connecting skills. Clinton karma. The lure of the “authoritarian personality” in American culture.
I generally agree with the 2022 authors of American Psychosis. There have always been extreme groups attracted to and allied with the Republican Party. The party tolerated them, used them and then welcomed them. Their numbers and influence grew compared with that of the Main Street, Wall Street, moderate and New England wings of the party. They completed the hostile takeover of the party with Trump in 2016. [There have also been extreme groups affiliated with the Democratic Party].
I also agree with Edmund Fawcett’s long-term analysis. Conservatism was founded as a political perspective in opposition to ALL of the changes of modernity.
1500. New religion. New economics. Urbanization. Industrialization. Trade. Property rights. Individual rights. Skepticism. Science. Change. Loss of authority. Loss of history and tradition. Cultural challenges.
For most people, modernity was a very scary set of changes. For more than 1,000 years the rules of life were fixed. They were consistent in all dimensions. The religious, political, military, social and economic dimensions were aligned. Then changes occurred. A new paradigm called “liberalism” arose in opposition. Change is good. The individual is supreme and has rights. The dimensions of life can/must be separated. Certainty is gone. Social power is flexible. Competition and meritocracy are welcomed. Rationality and scientific proof are valued. Innovation and commercial success matter. “Anything goes”!
Conservatism emerged to provide a needed counterweight. History, tradition, community, values, virtues, nobility, safety, family, familiarity, neighbors, culture, language, experience, religion, race, stability, trust, and property.
Opposition to rapid change is a core conservative value. The emergence of a capitalist, commercial, scientific, university, secular class in competition with the landholding nobility and its religious and political allies was a founding perspective of conservatism. Today, we think of the Republican Party as the party of “big business”, capitalism, laissez faire, competition, social Darwinism, libertarianism and meritocracy. Yet, conservatism looks back to culture, community, religion, institutions, family, and morality. Economic and social conservatism are not fully or easily aligned.
The Republican Party has slowly, increasingly and then overwhelmingly become the party of social conservatism end economic populism. The trend was growing. Trump saw it and formalized it. The US experience is not unique. Other western countries have had the same recent experience. We have seen these tensions for two centuries or more.
A Slippery Slope
Many American conservatives have never truly embraced modernity, urbanization, industrialization, cosmopolitanism, equal rights, racial equality, trade, capitalism, global trade, international alliances, international treaties, religious denominations, ecumenicism, tolerance, immigration, etc. A secure life based upon familiar experience and community is great. The opportunities of progress are small, risky and filled with temptations and unintended consequences.
Successful politicians have two main talents. They deeply understand human nature, and they communicate very well. Conservative leaning politicians have mined the fear dimension of human nature for centuries. With the emergence of the mass media and modern advertising and persuasion tools circa 1920 they have become increasingly more powerful.
They set out to capitalize on the lack of deep political knowledge, skills and interests of the populace. The have moved down the slippery slope of skepticism, cynicism, fear, distrust and victimhood to hate.
They discovered that humans are naturally attracted to the Manichaean opposites of good and evil. They learned to define issues as yes and no, right and wrong, us versus them. Polarization is a very effective communications technique. Newt Gingrich demonstrated its value in 1992.
They learned to frame, highlight, emphasize and communicate effectively. Both parties’ leaders and supporters have always thought that they were morally right, and their opponents mistaken, misguided or much worse.
The Democrats have mainly been stuck in the 1800’s forward class wars occasioned by capitalism and the rise of manufacturing. Labor versus capital. Poor versus rich. Exploited versus exploiters. Rural farmers and laborers versus bankers and cities. Their issues and messaging matched.
Since 1960, the Democrats have adjusted to also become the party of “human rights” on a legal basis. Civil, women’s, disabled, LGBTQ, environmental, global, animal and earth rights on top of economic rights. The messaging has mostly remained the same, contrasting the exploited with the exploiters.
The Republican Party has offered a much more diverse, richer and expanded set of political messages. The messages are all about fear. The ideas, people and threats to fear have diversified and accelerated. THE IDEAS, PEOPLE AND THREATS TO FEAR HAVE DIVERSIFIED AND ACCELERATED. This very negatively biased view threatens our democracy.
Defense and Security
The Cold War. Reds under the bed. Pinko commies.
Korean War. “The loss of China”.
Vietnam War. The domino theory. All or nothing.
Hawks versus doves. Patriots.
Cuba.
Middle east “Arabs” versus Israel.
War on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Isis.
Axis of Evil.
Bomb, baby, bomb.
China.
Trump has added Venezuela, narcoterrorists, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Greenland, Panama, Africa and Europe to those who cannot be trusted.
Eisenhower warned us about the “military-industrial complex”. It has managed to ensure that we are always at war with someone. Republicans have been the main hawks.
International Affairs
The US unilaterally defined the postwar rules at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire and joined the United Nations in San Francisco. The “America First” protectionists and unilateralists never really agreed. However, both parties supported the international system that cost-effectively protected American interests for more than 80 years.
Opposition to “foreign aid” was the first crack in the united front with politicians greatly exaggerating the amount of money invested and its ineffective usage. Foreign aid and health support levels fluctuated through time. Bush II was a proponent.
Historically, opposition to “free trade” was mostly a Democratic position. Alleged unfair power, rules, labor and environmental regulations. Republican global corporations were “all in”. Japanese, Asian, European and other third world competition offered higher quality and lower price goods to Americans who bought them in the 1970’s forward. Manufacturing job losses became a Republican issue as working-class Americans moved to the Republican Party from 1970-2020.
The US rejected the League of Nations. It tolerated the United Nations. The UN added a wide variety of international organizations. Republicans positioned the UN and these agencies as a waste of money supporting individuals, countries and organizations opposed to America. Trump defunded these organizations even as the World Health Organization played a key role in resolving the Covid pandemic.
The Paris Accords on climate change were another international agreement rejected by Trump, like the multilateral Iran nuclear proliferation limits.
NATO prospered for 70 years. Trump has questioned the rationale and his commitment to supporting our allies. He has badgered NATO and other allies to pay a greater amount for their defense. Trump renegotiated NAFTA with marginal changes. He has unilaterally applied tariffs to our neighbors and threatened to disband his own agreement.
Trump has threatened to invade Venezuela, Panama and Greenland because they allegedly threaten our security. He has removed many career foreign service staff members and politicized this vital national function.
The Economy
All politicians have criticized the opposition because inflation and unemployment are too high. Republicans claim that they are “the party of business” and more effective in managing the economy although the data says the opposite.
Republicans have claimed that Democrats wish to “socialize” the economy with the government owning and controlling all industries. No nationalization has occurred for more than a century. Deregulation of transportation in the 1970’s was a bipartisan initiative.
Republicans have exaggerated the size, scale, impact, employment and percentage of federal government activities for more than a century. Federal government activities DID increase very significantly during the Great Depression, WWII and the 1960’s Great Society initiatives. They have roughly remained at the same percentage of GDP since 1980.
Republicans have emphasized the “common sense” need to balance the federal budget and bemoaned the growing federal debt and its impact on future generations and “crowding out” of productive borrowing and investing. Their criticism rises when Democrats control the government and quiets when Republicans are in control as we have learned that 1-2-3% budget deficits seem to have no short or long-term deleterious effects. President Trump has no problem with running record budget deficits.
Republicans claimed that tax cuts would spur economic growth to offset the loss of revenue. The theoretical “Laffer Curve” has never been demonstrated to hold for the US. Republicans claimed that very high marginal income tax rates disincentivized highly productive Americans from working. Top marginal tax rates were cut from WWII 90% to 70% in 1965. Then lowered to 50% in 1981 and 37% or lower from 1986 forward. Grover Norquist and others after 1986 tried to “drown government in the bathtub” because “taxation is theft”. Bush I lost his reelection bid because of his “read my lips” reneged promise to not raise taxes.
Republicans claim that government regulations strangle businesses, cost money, reduce employment, stifle innovation, reduce R&D, and reduce investments. This is mostly a distraction. Regulations do require compliance costs for administration and reduced commercial activities. Corporations benefit from most drafted laws which provide opportunities for evasion and negotiation rather than strict compliance. If “clean” regulations were better they would ensure they were/are enacted.
Culture Wars / Wedge Issues
Civil rights legislation was supported by Democrats and Republicans. LBJ said “we may have lost the south for a generation”. He was right. The American South struggled with the aftermath of the Civil War, reconstruction and civil rights legislation. The belief that African-Americans should not mix with Whites died very slowly. New private schools were built to “solve the problem”. Court ordered busing to ensure equal racial opportunities in northern cities antagonized other Whites. Affirmative action court rulings divided the country, moving many Democrats to the Republican side.
Republicans made crime and drugs national issues. Directly and indirectly focusing on African-American communities.
Republicans made welfare a racial issue instead of a class, age or fairness issue.
The 1965 immigration act opened the door for poor immigrants from around the world.
President Reagan and congress agreed upon an amnesty and enforcement bill in 1986.
Bipartisan efforts to control migration were unsuccessful for the next 30 years. Trump pressured Congress to not approve a compromise bill in 2024. Trump has made immigration the center of his politics.
Education became a national political issue after the passage of the civil rights bills. Republicans advocated for “states’ rights” and the elimination of the federal “Department of Education”. The enforcement of equal racial access to public education drove these changes. The establishment of private Christian schools and the use of vouchers to fund them became a political issue.
Institutions
Historically, Republicans controlled all of the major institutions of the US. After “Brown vs. Board of Education”, they decided that institutions were not always perfect. The move of southerners from the “solid South” of Democrats to the Republican Party was a huge swing. Federal courts might not be trusted. Federal DOE might not be trusted.
The federal government was generally viewed as a positive entity based upon its activities during the Great Depression and WWII. Post-war investments in infrastructure were welcomed. The growth of federal employment, funding and power led to opposition by Republicans, claiming waste and inefficiency. Opposition to all federal staff and functions grew during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Reagan framed it as “I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” In 1996, President Clinton said “the era of big government is over”.
Support for American institutions began to decline after Nixon’s presidency. His acts showed that it was possible that previously trusted institutions were no longer definitely trustworthy.
Republicans positioned “government versus business”. Business was trustworthy, subject to the iron laws of the market. Government was subject to the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats.
Entrepreneurs were positioned as wealth and job-creators. They were crafted as makers versus takers. Obama’s claim in 2012 for an equal role for the public sector sparked much political debate.
Republicans applied this negative theory to everyone. Bureaucrats were subject to the incentives of lobbying, influence, bribery and career advancement. Inherently untrustworthy. Regulators were subject to regulatory capture. Teachers were self-absorbed and union captured. Same with police and fire fighters.
Spiro Agnew began the attack on the broader cultural elites as the “nattering nabobs of negativism”. The attack on the supposed cultural elites in the university, arts, media, communications and not for profit space has continued.
Trump and his acolytes have used DEI as a wedge to force organizations to comply with his political wishes.
Republicans use the term “elites” to drive fear. Political officials, bureaucrats, professors, journalists, commentators, executives, bankers, media influencers, actors, musicians, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and public health officials. Where does this end? What about the Republican elites?
Trump has undercut any faith in institutions. DOJ and FBI politicized. All federal agencies politicized.
We no longer rely upon trust or principles. Everything is based on power and transactions. The conservative economic view seems to Trump the conservative social view in the end.
Individuals
Republicans have positioned the political world to help voters see themselves as victims or potential victims of the opposition. The evil opposition is ready to take away your: guns, religion, parental rights, language, teams, history, culture, music, voting power, flag, patriotism, money, house, medical care and rights. They have demonized the opposition as “radical leftists”. Democrats have responded with the same level of name calling. Republican leaders have chased the RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) out of the party.
Summary
Republicans have increasingly chosen fear to build and maintain their political support for 70 years. It appeals to the lowest common denominator of those motivated by fear alone. It is unsustainable. We will either have a major breakdown of our society/culture or a rejection of this negative worldview very soon.
Former Indiana governor and Purdue University president Mitch Daniels provides us with a model of civility in his public life, as we have seen from many American political leaders.
Good News 