Republicans today definitely would be unrecognizable to Republicans of even 16 years ago. Here are some excerpts from the 2008 Republican Party Platform [1]. Are there any Republicans in Congress now who would agree with any of this?
They were for renewable energy:
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
> Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power. We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands.
They were for energy conservation, recycling, telecommuting, and reducing business travel:
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
They wanted better gas mileage for cars and a push for cars that do not rely on oil, with electric cars specifically mentioned:
> We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production. As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world. Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard. We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
They had a lot to say about climate change:
> Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
> The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
> The Solution: Technology and the Market
> As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
> To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.
> International Cooperation
> Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter. It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all.
> Using Cash Rewards to Encourage Innovation
> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
The change in the Republican party over the last 20 years has been shocking.
The conservatives I grew up around called Nixon a "wannabe tyrant" and my dad described as "believing he was king" in the Frost-Nixon interview. People were outraged by "when the president does it, it's not illegal".
My uncle ranted and raved about "billionaires like Soros subverting democracy".
Today, the White House can tweet a picture of trump wearing a crown titled "Long Live the King" and there's not even a peep. The Supreme Court can rule the President to be above the law, and there's no outcry. There's a billionaire talking over the president in fox news interviews, and not a single conservative I know has anything to say about it.
Truly there is no more American principle than "No Kings Here", and yet my uncle, a former marine, KNEELED when he saw Trump on TV during the Super Bowl. It's bewildering - I don't recognize any of these people anymore.
Right-Wing Americans haven't been conservative at least since Gingrich. There was nothing conservative about shutting down the Clinton-era counterterrorism programs prior to 9/11, for instance. There was nothing conservative about invading Iraq, or trying to administer Iraq as a right-wing utopia under the Coalition Provisional Authority.
I continue to be astonished at how the Republican party transformed from libertarians into a personality cult overnight because some weirdo won an election.
Lindsey Graham was on TV being all "never Trump" one week and then fully supportive the next. c.c. almost everyone else in Washington.
I wonder what the tipping point is among Republican voters between those who genuinely support Trump vs those who think the Democratic candidates are so bad for foreign policy, DEI, etc. that they'll vote from Trump in protest.
Who would the Democrats have to nominate to get the libertarians who used to vote Republican to back them instead?
I think Sanders would have unified because my MAGA parents liked his working-class support. But if I mention that among my progressive friends I get glares and stern warnings that Hillary was "the best" candidate and any objection is sexist. It's kinda like being a conservative who doesn't believe in god or is gay, your party will shun you.
I know anecdote vs anecdote is pretty much meaningless and I’m channeling “No true Scotsman”, but I find it hard to believe an actual progressive telling you that - the complaints from the progressive wing about Sanders losing the primaries are evergreen.
No, Sanders would never be a unifying figure. Libertarians see him as being essentially equivalent to Trump: a demagogue who makes emotional appeals to build a cult of personality, deeply misunderstands economics, and seeks to use political power in an unbounded and illegitimate ways.
But there as many libertarians that matter as there are antifa that matter.
They are noise in the data.
Populism is a marketing tool (to quote Hank Green) and Sanders wielded it as well as trump, but to help people, not punish them. Both have decades of track records demonstrating this fact.
> Present day conservatives are just awful people in general in my experience.
I don't think I've seen any conservatives involved in mainstream politics in the past 15 to 20 years. I see people using the word "conservatives" to describe something else entirely, but few actual conservatives.
I see it the other way around. This is real conservatism.
Conservatism as an actual movement was formed after the French Revolution when monarchists found that “deus vult” was no longer sufficient justification for wanting a king. The core principles are just rationalizations for the main idea: there should be a king.
American conservatives got swept away by democratic ideals and focused on the rationalizations, but now they’re getting back to their roots.
> I see it the other way around. This is real conservatism.
It's really not.
> Conservatism as an actual movement was formed after the French Revolution when monarchists found that “deus vult” was no longer sufficient justification for wanting a king.
In fact, conservatism in the Anglo-American world has no relationship whatsoever with the French revolution; the sort of reactionary monarchism that informed the royalist factions during the French revolution was already all but dead in the UK and America by the time of the French revolution -- it had already been driven to the fringes by the English civil war and the Glorious Revolution, and in the aftermath of the Whig ascendancy and the American revolution, was utterly gone by the 19th century.
Modern conservatism descends from the non-radical side of the Whig philosophy, as exemplified by Edmund Burke, and is characterized by preferring stability and continuity rather than forceful change, within a context of limited, balanced government, rule of law, and respect for the individual. Many of the people referring to themselves today as "conservatives" are collectivist, authoritarian radicals, and have much more in common with the extreme left than with traditional conservatism.
They were for renewable energy:
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
> Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power. We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands.
They were for energy conservation, recycling, telecommuting, and reducing business travel:
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
They wanted better gas mileage for cars and a push for cars that do not rely on oil, with electric cars specifically mentioned:
> We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production. As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world. Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard. We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
They had a lot to say about climate change:
> Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
> The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
> The Solution: Technology and the Market
> As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
> To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.
> International Cooperation
> Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter. It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all.
> Using Cash Rewards to Encourage Innovation
> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-pa...