Why do you think the GOP is so divided and when did it become that way?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Personally I think this really took off during Bush 43's time in office when libertarians and conservatives became more hostile to the Bush Administrations positions on Iraq, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind etc and the asinine Department of Homeland Security but it became really pronounced in 2009 under Obama's Administration when the Tea Party came into existence.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

40 years ago the GOP establishment courted social conservatives to become a political juggernaut. Along the way, they promised things (e.g. ban abortion) they never wanted to follow through with. They made "the government" into a boogeyman that is inherently bad. Now those voters want wha they've been promised; they want the impossible vision that establishment Republicans dangled in front of them for so long.

[Adam Griffin]

They're not really divided where/when it matters. They're arguing over window-dressing for the most part. At its core, all segments of the GOP voting bloc want to implement the same economically-restrictive, exclusionary and failed policies they always have championed - it's just a matter of arguing over how those policies are framed to the voters.

All of these RINOS, libertarians and cry-baby Tea Partiers alike - all of whom like to say they won't support anyone not cut from their cloth - will file lock-step into the voting booth on election day in droves and vote for every GOP nominee for office up and down the ballot, from President (whether that be Trump, Paul or Jeb!) to dog-catcher. Precedent is a bitch.

[Torie]

The collapse of private sector unions,  the rise of the social conservative movement and the salience in the public square of those issues, and the fall of the Soviet Union, has caused a rather substantial plate tectonic shift in the public square, and the fracturing of the old GOP base.

[Orser67]

I would also point to the Bush Administration. Bush didn't significantly shrink the gov't (and actually increased the size of Medicare) despite the GOP controlling both houses of Congress for four years of his term. After that, it became clear that the GOP establishment wasn't as committed to shrinking gov't as the hardcore right. The establishment's unwillingness to shut down the gov't in the long term in order to end Obamacare has reinforced this point.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dick Armey and Tom Delay were the hardliners, then when Gingrich was removed the pragmatist like J Dennis Hassert took over. And the hardliners were further sidelined with Tom Delay's removal as well. That's why Bob Livingston wasnt seated as Speaker, it was time for Dubya to be elected.

[RINO Tom]

It's more divided today than a few decades ago, and I don't exactly know when it REALLY took off.  However, let's not act like both parties haven't been pretty damn divided for virtually their entire existences.

[DS0816]

I don't think either political party is divided.

I think any of the "divides" which have struck, only on occasion, did so with particular elections.

I generally think the primaries/caucuses voters are not a passionate, ideological bunch. They're partisans who give lip service but, in the end, get behind the party's obvious candidate.

If I have this totally wrong…I'd like to know when the next general election will boast a presidential winner having carried 40 or more states with an electoral-vote score not only having reached 400 but is also north of 450 and possibly arriving at 500.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The fall of communism was the worst thing for the Republican Party. Before, all factions could easily be united against the common threat.

The social conservative could argue for the traditional Christian values under threat from the godless Communists and their useful idiots. The businessman and his allies could rail against government planning and perceived allies of the Spviets in the labor movement. The national conservative and his allies in the intelligence services and military could get his military funding, his increased powers for the central government against asocial (communist-sympathising) and above all, America, as a strong bulwark in the world. The fight against communism was not merely militaristic tubthumping between two superpowers; but religious, moral, sociopolitical, intellectual and economic.

With no threat of communism, the contradictions began to unravel. Why would a staunch Christian care about some godless banksters profit margin? Why would a tradionally minded nativist American who wants strong borders want to open trade with Mexico? Why can a budget hawk justify the military budget considering the gutting of every other social program. There is no common powerful enemy that can really capture so many fears as the USSR was.

[RINO Tom]

The fall of communism was the worst thing for the Republican Party. Before, all factions could easily be united against the common threat.

The social conservative could argue for the traditional Christian values under threat from the godless Communists and their useful idiots. The businessman and his allies could rail against government planning and perceived allies of the Spviets in the labor movement. The national conservative and his allies in the intelligence services and military could get his military funding, his increased powers for the central government against asocial (communist-sympathising) and above all, America, as a strong bulwark in the world.

With no threat of communism, the contradictions began to unravel. Why would a staunch Christian care about some godless banksters profit margin? Why would a tradionally minded nativist American who wants strong borders want to open trade with Mexico? Why can a budget hawk justify the military budget considering the gutting of every other social program. There is no common powerful enemy that can really capture so many fears as the USSR was.

There's a lot of truth to this.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The fall of communism was the worst thing for the Republican Party. Before, all factions could easily be united against the common threat.

The social conservative could argue for the traditional Christian values under threat from the godless Communists and their useful idiots. The businessman and his allies could rail against government planning and perceived allies of the Spviets in the labor movement. The national conservative and his allies in the intelligence services and military could get his military funding, his increased powers for the central government against asocial (communist-sympathising) and above all, America, as a strong bulwark in the world.

With no threat of communism, the contradictions began to unravel. Why would a staunch Christian care about some godless banksters profit margin? Why would a tradionally minded nativist American who wants strong borders want to open trade with Mexico? Why can a budget hawk justify the military budget considering the gutting of every other social program. There is no common powerful enemy that can really capture so many fears as the USSR was.

There's a lot of truth to this.

There are two possible "new enemies" in sight (following the failure of the less well-defined War on Terror that seems to now be rejected by a large portion of the GOP base):

- the religion of Islam.

- the nation of China.

Both have advantages of becoming the new "overarching enemy" but there are some flaws I.e. Islam cannot ever "take over the U.S." in the same way Communism could have, and the U.S. is filled with fizzled out protests against supposed "subversive" religions and groups (Mormons Jews, Papists, Freemasons) that came to nothing; and China is so staunchly tied to the U.S. economy posturing as enemies is counterproductive for both their sake's.

[Kingpoleon]

It's not as clean cut as the Democrats are.

Ex.: Rand Paul, if his faction was large enough, would be an actual libertarian. As it is, he needs support from Cruz's group too. Cruz needs Paul's voters on the NSA. Rubio and Carson have similar types of supporters, if not similar ideologically. Etc., etc., etc.

[hopper]

I would also point to the Bush Administration. Bush didn't significantly shrink the gov't (and actually increased the size of Medicare) despite the GOP controlling both houses of Congress for four years of his term. After that, it became clear that the GOP establishment wasn't as committed to shrinking gov't as the hardcore right. The establishment's unwillingness to shut down the gov't in the long term in order to end Obamacare has reinforced this point.

Oh yeah Obama was really gonna really sign a repeal of a bill called "ObamaCare". Come on now...
Do you think Reid was gonna bring ObamaCare up for a repeal vote too in 2013?

[hopper]

Personally I think this really took off during Bush 43's time in office when libertarians and conservatives became more hostile to the Bush Administrations positions on Iraq, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind etc and the asinine Department of Homeland Security but it became really pronounced in 2009 under Obama's Administration when the Tea Party came into existence.

This. The removal of Moderates from the party hurt them too with Minority Voters mainly with Latinos and Asians. The Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson's are gone.

[hopper]

It's more divided today than a few decades ago, and I don't exactly know when it REALLY took off.  However, let's not act like both parties haven't been pretty damn divided for virtually their entire existences.

Well yeah the Dems were a mess at the Presidential Level in the 70's and 80's losing spectacularly in 49 state blowouts in 1972 and 1984. The GOP is kinda similar now in that they aren't competitive in the Electoral College.

[hopper]

They're not really divided where/when it matters. They're arguing over window-dressing for the most part. At its core, all segments of the GOP voting bloc want to implement the same economically-restrictive, exclusionary and failed policies they always have championed - it's just a matter of arguing over how those policies are framed to the voters.

All of these RINOS, libertarians and cry-baby Tea Partiers alike - all of whom like to say they won't support anyone not cut from their cloth - will file lock-step into the voting booth on election day in droves and vote for every GOP nominee for office up and down the ballot, from President (whether that be Trump, Paul or Jeb!) to dog-catcher. Precedent is a bitch.

I don't think its a issue of "Presentation" of policies as you put it is a problem. Its a matter of tactics. The "Freedom Caucus" always want to put "Shutting Down The Government" on the table  when shutting down the government should be the last resort or tactic of negotiating anything.

[hopper]

40 years ago the GOP establishment courted social conservatives to become a political juggernaut. Along the way, they promised things (e.g. ban abortion) they never wanted to follow through with. They made "the government" into a boogeyman that is inherently bad. Now those voters want wha they've been promised; they want the impossible vision that establishment Republicans dangled in front of them for so long.

I don't know if the GOP as a whole has made government into a boogeyman. I mean its healthy to be skeptic of government. I just can't stand the hard-liners in the party in that they seem to be anarchists and that they totally dislike government.

[Likely Voter]

Blame McCain? Barack Obama's former Chief of Staff Bill Daley has an editorial in WaPo today titled The GOP’s dysfunction all started with Sarah Palin which notes...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ogre Mage]

I think much of it has to do with the fact that at the Presidential level, the Republican Party does not have a usable past.  The GOP has to go all the way back to Reagan for its last successful President and that was 30 years ago.  Bush the First became a pariah because he raised taxes after pledging not to, acted out-of-touch when a recession occurred on his watch and became a one-term President.  Congressional Republicans marched in lock-step behind Bush the Second until his presidency collapsed and he left office with a 30% job approval rating.  These failures meant the Republican Establishment lacked the authority to command respect or enforce discipline. 

The Democratic base certainly had problems with Bill Clinton during the 1990s, but the fact is that he left office with a 60% job approval and the legacy of a booming economy.  Obama's approvals are only in the high 40s, but he has considerably more respect and unity from the base than Bill did.  In terms of meeting progressive policy goals I would argue he has accomplished more than Bill Clinton.  Mainstream Democrats are comfortable being associated with them, far more than how comfortable Republicans seem to be around Bush I and II.  Thus, the Democratic Establishment has an authority that the GOP establishment lacks.

[RI]

Blame McCain? Barack Obama's former Chief of Staff Bill Daley has an editorial in WaPo today titled The GOP’s dysfunction all started with Sarah Palin which notes...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that the inception of the GOP's current chasm can be most directly linked to this moment, but I have to think it would have still come to pass by some other mechanism even if McCain had picked someone else as VP.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh , Mark Levin, and all these extreme right wing hosts

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'd say the GOP's leaders have a lot to do with this by actively courting more extreme elements of American society and then whipping them up in frenzied hatred and bunker mentalities to win elections, but not really realizing how this would create a more extreme voter base that would elect increasingly conservative politicians, who would then continue the cycle.

Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush were more than happy to fear-monger on the campaign trail when it helped turn the base out, but once elected were happy to sit down with Democrats to govern (horrible thing that is, isn't it). Just look at how different the GHWB of the 1988 and 1992 campaign rhetoric was from his actual Presidency; worlds apart.

However, all those Baby Boomers who grew up in the tranquil 1950s, turbulent 1960s, depressing 1970s, and "prosperous" 1980s were helping power these Presidents by turning out to vote for them in these elections, and ate up all the crap that was fed to them and believed it.

Then, in the 1990s, generation changed happens all across government, with the Republican Revolution of 1994 the most famous case. The New Deal generation's influence in government dies off as they literally die off themselves, and are replaced by these "new conservative" Baby Boomers who lionize Reagan and his "revolution".

Then 9/11 happens and the Muslims become their enemy. Increasing numbers of people realize that gays aren't actually horrible, and support for their rights ticks up. So what does GW Bush do in 2004? Campaigns on his war on Islamic terror and banning gay marriage, cementing the image in the long run among young voters and immigrants that the GOP is a party of hateful white Christians.

Then Obama gets elected, and the once-revolutionary Baby Boomer generation is painted as "RINOS" by a new generation of Baby Boomers (many born in the last half of the Baby Boomer generation) and now the first half of the Generation X group) even more extreme who get elected in 2010.

And now we approach 2016, and those 2010 Tea Partiers are suddenly "not conservative enough".


It's a positive-feedback loop of extremism. The leaders of the GOP, both past and present, have a lot of blame to cast upon themselves for 1.) inviting these people into their party, and 2.) feeding their paranoia and resentment for electoral gain.


"Lay in the bed you made" and all

[Bojack Horseman]

My answer to both questions. ^^^

[ag]

Any party that includes white southerners will be divided. Their preferences are simply too distinct from the rest.

[I support Sanders]

I'd say the GOP's leaders have a lot to do with this by actively courting more extreme elements of American society and then whipping them up in frenzied hatred and bunker mentalities to win elections, but not really realizing how this would create a more extreme voter base that would elect increasingly conservative politicians, who would then continue the cycle.

Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush were more than happy to fear-monger on the campaign trail when it helped turn the base out, but once elected were happy to sit down with Democrats to govern (horrible thing that is, isn't it). Just look at how different the GHWB of the 1988 and 1992 campaign rhetoric was from his actual Presidency; worlds apart.

However, all those Baby Boomers who grew up in the tranquil 1950s, turbulent 1960s, depressing 1970s, and "prosperous" 1980s were helping power these Presidents by turning out to vote for them in these elections, and ate up all the crap that was fed to them and believed it.

Then, in the 1990s, generation changed happens all across government, with the Republican Revolution of 1994 the most famous case. The New Deal generation's influence in government dies off as they literally die off themselves, and are replaced by these "new conservative" Baby Boomers who lionize Reagan and his "revolution".

Then 9/11 happens and the Muslims become their enemy. Increasing numbers of people realize that gays aren't actually horrible, and support for their rights ticks up. So what does GW Bush do in 2004? Campaigns on his war on Islamic terror and banning gay marriage, cementing the image in the long run among young voters and immigrants that the GOP is a party of hateful white Christians.

Then Obama gets elected, and the once-revolutionary Baby Boomer generation is painted as "RINOS" by a new generation of Baby Boomers (many born in the last half of the Baby Boomer generation) and now the first half of the Generation X group) even more extreme who get elected in 2010.

And now we approach 2016, and those 2010 Tea Partiers are suddenly "not conservative enough".


It's a positive-feedback loop of extremism. The leaders of the GOP, both past and present, have a lot of blame to cast upon themselves for 1.) inviting these people into their party, and 2.) feeding their paranoia and resentment for electoral gain.


"Lay in the bed you made" and all

Brilliant.