A history lesson on the continuing development of the Republican party

[eric82oslo]

Truely fascinating reading from a professor of history at Boston College in today's Washington Post on the two faces of the Republican party from the Civil War on and until today, where Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower stand on one side, while the modern day tea party, Ronald Reagan and Herbert Hoover (famous for his Hoovervilles) are facing the other way, politically and ideologically speaking: "How the GOP stopped caring about you": http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-gop-stopped-caring-about-you-how-therepublicans-became-selfish/2014/09/17/7fe87a70-3dc5-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

[Indy Texas]

Hoover arguably belongs on the Lincoln/Eisenhower side of the equation, despite the assumptions that scattershot readings of history make about him. He was an engineer and a product of the Industrial Revolution and the Machine Age. He saw society as one big factory and all of its citizens and institutions as its moving parts - solving public policy problems was no different than trying to make an assembly line run more smoothly. On one hand, it's optimistically liberal - it opens the door for central planning and reliance on experts over the collective decision making of market actors. On the other hand, it's unsympathetically conservative - it can give rise to a cold, managerial "run government like a business" mentality. But the fact that Hoover believed government could work well and be a positive force in society is what precludes him from being lumped in with the Tea Party.

[AggregateDemand]

The world changed in the late 1970s. Democrats still don't get it.

[MaxQue]

The world changed in the late 1970s. Democrats still don't get it.

It changed again in 2008.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The world changed in the late 1970s. Democrats still don't get it.

It changed again in 2008.

I was going to post that. Of course most Republicans probably think that the economy was booming until January 20th, 2009.

[Cassius]

This article is just awful. I mean yeah, obviously the only dimension in the internal politics of the GOP has been the split between vaguely defined 'progressivism' and the vaguely defined 'reactionaries' .

[pbrower2a]

Hoover arguably belongs on the Lincoln/Eisenhower side of the equation, despite the assumptions that scattershot readings of history make about him. He was an engineer and a product of the Industrial Revolution and the Machine Age. He saw society as one big factory and all of its citizens and institutions as its moving parts - solving public policy problems was no different than trying to make an assembly line run more smoothly. On one hand, it's optimistically liberal - it opens the door for central planning and reliance on experts over the collective decision making of market actors. On the other hand, it's unsympathetically conservative - it can give rise to a cold, managerial "run government like a business" mentality. But the fact that Hoover believed government could work well and be a positive force in society is what precludes him from being lumped in with the Tea Party.

Hoover was simply ill-suited to be President. He demonstrates that profit-and-loss experience is irrelevant to government, much of which (like justice and law enforcement) could never operate on a profit-and-loss basis.

The economic meltdowns beginning in 2007 and 1929 had much the same cause and did similar damage for about a year and a half. The difference? In 2009 Barack Obama backed the banks at the start of his term. In 1931, Herbert Hoover let the bank runs that would eventually shred the financial system 'sort things out'. That sorting-out undid about 25 years of economic progress. That is how business mangers see things in macroeconomics.

The Tea Party pols are cruel. Put them fully in charge, and they would give us a full-blown Depression.     

 

[politicus]

This article is just awful. I mean yeah, obviously the only dimension in the internal politics of the GOP has been the split between vaguely defined 'progressivism' and the vaguely defined 'reactionaries' .

It has some good points, but its pretty weak sauce for a history professor. The simplistic message is probably good if you wanna sell books.

[AggregateDemand]

It changed again in 2008.

It changed because the anti-stagflation CRA and the Clinton-era housing stimulus collapsed global credit markets?

The world didn't change in 2008. The pendulum swung farther in the same direction as our silly demand-stimulus policies made us vulnerable to foreign labor and imported commodities. The economic crisis of 2008 made Republicans realize that their appeasement policies during the Bush administrations (HW & W) were not tenable, hence the Tea Party and Libertarian rebellions.

I don't think you understand what is going on.

[Person Man]

Hoover arguably belongs on the Lincoln/Eisenhower side of the equation, despite the assumptions that scattershot readings of history make about him. He was an engineer and a product of the Industrial Revolution and the Machine Age. He saw society as one big factory and all of its citizens and institutions as its moving parts - solving public policy problems was no different than trying to make an assembly line run more smoothly. On one hand, it's optimistically liberal - it opens the door for central planning and reliance on experts over the collective decision making of market actors. On the other hand, it's unsympathetically conservative - it can give rise to a cold, managerial "run government like a business" mentality. But the fact that Hoover believed government could work well and be a positive force in society is what precludes him from being lumped in with the Tea Party.

Hoover was simply ill-suited to be President. He demonstrates that profit-and-loss experience is irrelevant to government, much of which (like justice and law enforcement) could never operate on a profit-and-loss basis.

The economic meltdowns beginning in 2007 and 1929 had much the same cause and did similar damage for about a year and a half. The difference? In 2009 Barack Obama backed the banks at the start of his term. In 1931, Herbert Hoover let the bank runs that would eventually shred the financial system 'sort things out'. That sorting-out undid about 25 years of economic progress. That is how business mangers see things in macroeconomics.

The Tea Party pols are cruel. Put them fully in charge, and they would give us a full-blown Depression.     

 

Are you suggesting if the bust happened a year earlier, things could have gotten as bad as they did in the Great Depression?  I suspect that may have been the case.

[King]

It changed again in 2008.

It changed because the anti-stagflation CRA and the Clinton-era housing stimulus collapsed global credit markets?

Only academic conservatives like yourself see it that way, just like academic liberals see the late 1970s as the product Nixon's monetary policy changes.  It's all purely academic.

The majority of regular average people in 2008 (you know, voters) saw it as a reason to not trust Republicans at all, just as the majority of average people in 1980 dropped the New Deal Democrats. That's the problem the Republicans have right now.

[AggregateDemand]

Only academic conservatives like yourself see it that way, just like academic liberals see the late 1970s as the product Nixon's monetary policy changes.  It's all purely academic.

The majority of regular average people in 2008 (you know, voters) saw it as a reason to not trust Republicans at all, just as the majority of average people in 1980 dropped the New Deal Democrats. That's the problem the Republicans have right now.

In 1980, voters turned their backs because they understood (inherently or by political indoctrination) that unbalanced demand-manipulation caused inflation, which undermined the US economy. High marginal tax rates were seen as the segue to demand-manipulation and lack of productivity.

In 2008, voters turned their backs on Republicans because they were pissed off. That's as deep as the argument goes. What did Bush do? You could argue that his political impotence in Term 2 allowed Congress to run amok with their banker friends and raise min wage right before a recession (as if sticky wages aren't bad enough), but that's hardly a sign of Republican policy. The only legitimate arguments blamed Republicans for the exorbitant cost of post-secondary education, but that was it. Democrats were equally culpable for blocking energy development, and allowing oil to reach $140/bbl.

It's true that CRA and the Anti-Redlining Ruse cannot be directly traced to the mortgage-backed securities collapse. However, they are both part of government programs to manipulate demand on behalf of corporate America.

[King]

Oh brother. The majority of voters in 1980 were not economics professors. The average 1980 voter was even less educated than the average 2008 voter. They had no idea what caused inflation or understood "unbalanced demand-manipulation." They knew they weren't happy with Jimmy Carter and his handling of the Iran situation, energy crisis, and inflation among other things.

In 1980, younger impressionable voters saw a terrible President in Jimmy Carter and an inspiring President in Ronald Reagan and became Republicans for life. That's all that happened. Nobody was sitting around having 300 level economics class discussions.

[bedstuy]

Yeah, this is pretty bad history, basically turning things into good guys vs. bad guys. 

I think the story has been the same for a long time, just the old line Republican Party vs. the conservative movement battling for control, mods vs. cons.  You could make the argument that the conservative movement actually dates from the 1920s with the post-WWI era chaos and the red scare. 

[AggregateDemand]

Oh brother. The majority of voters in 1980 were not economics professors. The average 1980 voter was even less educated than the average 2008 voter. They had no idea what caused inflation or understood "unbalanced demand-manipulation." They knew they weren't happy with Jimmy Carter and his handling of the Iran situation, energy crisis, and inflation among other things.

In 1980, younger impressionable voters saw a terrible President in Jimmy Carter and an inspiring President in Ronald Reagan and became Republicans for life. That's all that happened. Nobody was sitting around having 300 level economics class discussions.

I didn't claim Republican voters were not subject to the same electoral impulses. I said they understood, via their own knowledge or via political indoctrination, the supposed faults of the Carter admin or of liberalism in general: high maringal taxes, rampant inflation caused by certain types of government programs and monetary policies. The platform was explicitly articulated.

The same cannot be said for 2008. Nothing has changed other than fracking and some aggravating cost-shifting in the health insurance industry. CAFE standards are currently below market fleet fuel economy. Cap gains changed, but everyone knew that had to happen when stimulus and QE started up. We're living in virtually the same world, except now Democrats block reform (besides fracking), rather than Republicans running away from reform.

[King]

No. The same can absolutely be said about 2008. Older New Deal Depression-era Americans did not trust Reagan. The Democrats won big in midterm elections in the 1980s for that very reason. Reagan won youth, he received well over 60% of the vote under 35 years old. In the same way, Obama won easily in 2008 and 2012 but struggled in midterms when older Americans, who were once the young Americans in 1980 being spooked by liberalism, turn out to vote more.

The young people of this nation are aligned politically with the Democratic Party and contrary to popular belief, data shows that voting patterns rarely change throughout lifetimes. These college aged Democrats will remain Democrats into the elderly years as long as the Republicans continue to behave like nothing is wrong.

Yes, Obama was not as much of a liberal reformer as his persona suggested, but neither was Reagan. Reagan did not achieve as much as his staunch admirers today assume. He sacrificed a lot to the Democrats in Congress. Most of the conservative change in the 1980s was entirely superficial. Perception matters more than academic fact.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

It changed because the anti-stagflation CRA and the Clinton-era housing stimulus collapsed global credit markets?

Oh God, you're one of those "poor people crashed the economy" conservatives. Now I know you're truly a troll.

[Indy Texas]

It changed because the anti-stagflation CRA and the Clinton-era housing stimulus collapsed global credit markets?

Oh God, you're one of those "poor people crashed the economy" conservatives. Now I know you're truly a troll.

He ate up Rick Santelli's vein-throbbing histrionics about how none of it would have happened if those lazy, greedy lower-middle class slobs hadn't insisted on buying the tract house with the guest bathroom.

[Deus Naturae]

It changed because the anti-stagflation CRA and the Clinton-era housing stimulus collapsed global credit markets?

Oh God, you're one of those "poor people crashed the economy" conservatives. Now I know you're truly a troll.

He ate up Rick Santelli's vein-throbbing histrionics about how none of it would have happened if those lazy, greedy lower-middle class slobs hadn't insisted on buying the tract house with the guest bathroom.

Well, there clearly were a lot of people who got mortgages they couldn't afford and shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Why that happened is debatable, but it's hardly "anti-poor" to suggest that affordable housing regulations which forcibly reduced lending standards might have had something to with it (FTR, I don't think they were the main cause, but IMO they were still a factor).

[Person Man]

It changed because the anti-stagflation CRA and the Clinton-era housing stimulus collapsed global credit markets?

Oh God, you're one of those "poor people crashed the economy" conservatives. Now I know you're truly a troll.

It's great that he thinks out of the box, but the entire "life isn't fair because it's too fair" shows some other issues going on..

[bedstuy]

It changed because the anti-stagflation CRA and the Clinton-era housing stimulus collapsed global credit markets?

Oh God, you're one of those "poor people crashed the economy" conservatives. Now I know you're truly a troll.

He ate up Rick Santelli's vein-throbbing histrionics about how none of it would have happened if those lazy, greedy lower-middle class slobs hadn't insisted on buying the tract house with the guest bathroom.

Well, there clearly were a lot of people who got mortgages they couldn't afford and shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Why that happened is debatable, but it's hardly "anti-poor" to suggest that affordable housing regulations which forcibly reduced lending standards might have had something to with it (FTR, I don't think they were the main cause, but IMO they were still a factor).

Anti-poor or not, it isn't true.  The CRA was passed in 1977 for crying out loud.  1977!  How do you blame a 1977 law for bad loans made mostly around 2003-2007?  And, the CRA only applied to banks and thrifts.  Most of the bad loans were made by mortgage origination companies, not covered by the CRA at all.  On top of that, the whole root cause was financial manipulation by investment banks.  Anyone in that industry will tell you that. 

Or, just think of it this way.  Who has the power in finance, the major investment banks or random people trying to buy a home?  It takes two parties to make a loan after all.  Do you think a bunch of poor people just barged into Goldman Sachs and demanded that they use structured finance to create a housing bubble so they could buy a bigger house?  Just use your common sense.

[AggregateDemand]

Oh God, you're one of those "poor people crashed the economy" conservatives. Now I know you're truly a troll.

Maybe you think people fantasize about kicking the poor around, but I wouldn't waste my time, besides we all know that lower-middle class and poor people were not the big default risk. CRA and Clinton red-lining are a question of civic restraint, and whether or not those policies opened a pandora's box and created perverse economic incentives in the mortgage market.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Since this two-bit excuse for a history professor is at Boston College, where in her dichotomy fits Henry Cabot Lodge?

[TJ in Oregon]

This article is just awful. I mean yeah, obviously the only dimension in the internal politics of the GOP has been the split between vaguely defined 'progressivism' and the vaguely defined 'reactionaries' .

What I never understand is why the political folks always care more about how fast a politician advocates some kind of social change than they do what position they actually advocate. We inexplicably care more about the derivative than we do the value itself.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If this is what counts as both writing and history to a member of academia, then God help us. Maybe I should start looking at teaching as a career...