does anyone see the republican party turning nationalist?

[Person Man]

It would seem to be a good strategy for them to go down the road that W set for them to win over fast growing minority communities but if they win that way in 2016 (winning enough blacks in the swingy south, enough po' whites in the midwest and enough Hispanics in the west), it would still be too soon to tell how that would change Conservatism in the future and it would be decades before something like a truly socialist/communitarian conservatism to emerge....or it could be sooner but it would be very unlikely. I think it becomes more likely if the main emphasis of conservatives becomes more about the Religious Right than Big Business and at times during W, it seemed that way

[Person Man]

You're on to something in general, I think. This could happen if the masses who vote Republican begin electing their own into high office in large numbers (rather than the typical elite corporate insider who is the stereotypical republican officeholder these days). This is already starting to happen in some ways with the Tea Party movement and such, but I have no idea if it will continue.

are there socialist teapartiers?

I suspect a substantial percent of them happily draw Social Security.

I'd say a larger percent are unhappy about it than among eligible non-teapartiers the same age.

It must be very easy for them to say that, but very hard for their actions to prove it. 4 years ago, they were stirred almost to violence when someone even attempted to slightly alter some of their age-based entitlements.

[Person Man]

Sounds like some variant of populism to me, rather than socialism per se. I don't see the Pubs turning populist unless somehow that manages to attract large numbers of persons of color. Otherwise, I don't see how that works politically. The Dems tend to be more naturally attuned to populistic rhetoric, and for the parties to switch places on this, requires attracting large cohorts of people that more than replace the Torie types who will leave.

You are way overestimating how many "Torie types" that are out there. In many states in the middle is the country, it is because of the populist rhetoric that the Republican party does so well. That's true even in places like the Central Valley and IE in California.

Seriously, the Republican party is guilty of the same class warfare that Democrats are always being accused of, it's just a different style. Dems attack corporate fat cats and good ol boy networks that they see as controlling everybody's lives. Republicans attack ivy leaguers, academic elites and hollywood types claiming that they're trying to reshape and degrade America's values. That type of populist rhetoric is the reason why Republicans have done so well in white rural areas these past few decades.

Its basically the Republican monologue that states "We are the party of the wealthy because we believe everyone can be wealthy. That being said, as an American, you have a right to be poor. Democrats want to take that fundamental freedom to fail away and when that happens, no one will be rich or free. This is because anyone who would sacrifice a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security will get neither. Even if the freedom being sacrifice is the freedom to suck."

[Person Man]

Sounds like some variant of populism to me, rather than socialism per se. I don't see the Pubs turning populist unless somehow that manages to attract large numbers of persons of color. Otherwise, I don't see how that works politically. The Dems tend to be more naturally attuned to populistic rhetoric, and for the parties to switch places on this, requires attracting large cohorts of people that more than replace the Torie types who will leave.

You are way overestimating how many "Torie types" that are out there. In many states in the middle is the country, it is because of the populist rhetoric that the Republican party does so well. That's true even in places like the Central Valley and IE in California.

Seriously, the Republican party is guilty of the same class warfare that Democrats are always being accused of, it's just a different style. Dems attack corporate fat cats and good ol boy networks that they see as controlling everybody's lives. Republicans attack ivy leaguers, academic elites and hollywood types claiming that they're trying to reshape and degrade America's values. That type of populist rhetoric is the reason why Republicans have done so well in white rural areas these past few decades.

Its basically the Republican monologue that states "We are the party of the wealthy because we believe everyone can be wealthy. That being said, as an American, you have a right to be poor. Democrats want to take that fundamental freedom to fail away and when that happens, no one will be rich or free. This is because anyone who would sacrifice a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security will get neither. Even if the freedom being sacrifice is the freedom to suck."

It hasn't always been viewed as class warfare, but your point is consistent with my earlier post. The packaging changes with the times and the groups in a party's coalition.

The common thread of the GOP since Lincoln's time has been to promote self reliance. Redistribution of wealth as suggested by the OP has rarely fit into that thread. So, it's hard for me to see that thread totally severed, but nothing's impossible in US politics.

Was there a time when self-reliance and class warfare didn't come hand in hand since the Democrats moved beyond being the party of Post-Reconstruction Southern Rights and  Tammany Hall?