Is the Republican party conservative?

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Building off of this thread, is the Republican party conservative or not, given that it is still embracing Donald Trump as its nominee.

[DavidB.]

make u think lvl over 9000

[Person Man]

In the most classical sense? Yes and No.

[Enduro]

Yeah.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't know about "conservative" seeing as that that is an incredibly broad and poorly defined term (even more so than "liberal" which at least has - or rather, had - an actual, at least vaguely coherent (though still with many quite different meanings in practice, over time and place) theory of politics behind it) which only make a lick of sense in specific contexts - of which there are obviously countless different possibilities.

However, the Republican Party is certainly right-wing, and the far-right influences are increasingly noticeable and aggressively asserting themselves these days. So that's the only thing that we really can say for sure without getting into tiresome political label games.

[Cashew]

No it is reactionary.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

No it is reactionary.

Honestly yeah the current base is more reactionary than conservative.

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

Is the pope catholic?

[Potus]

It's a party built on conservative instinct that has lost the culture it's supposed to be conserving. The American Dream isn't believable to a large and growing minority of the party. American conservatism has always been about coupling responsibility, like family, church, and community institutions, with rugged, meritocratic individualism. The argument against social liberalism is that abdicates responsibility and funds that abdication through punishment of merit. If a large portion of conservatives lose their sense of responsibility and sense of agency, what are we even fighting for?

[NeverAgain]

Whatever it is, it's dumb.

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's a party built on conservative instinct that has lost the culture it's supposed to be conserving. The American Dream isn't believable to a large and growing minority of the party. American conservatism has always been about coupling responsibility, like heterosexual family, Christian church, and white community institutions, with rugged, meritocratic individualism. The argument against social liberalism is that abdicates responsibility and funds that abdication through punishment of merit. If a large portion of conservatives lose their sense of responsibility and sense of agency, what are we even fighting for?

FIFY.

They're approaching fascism, unless the establishment can somehow manage to defeat these reactionary Trump supporters and those on the alt right who fear "the other" and who want to take the party down with them.

[ag]

No. At this point, it is radical reactionary.

[hopper]

No. At this point, it is radical reactionary.

The Republican Party isn't radical.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Not anymore. Let's be honest here. It is dangerous, but it isn't conservative.

[Person Man]

If Trump wins, it will become a Nationalist Party. If he loses, it will revert to being a Conservative one.

[Cassius]

If Trump wins, it will become a Nationalist Party. If he loses, it will revert to being a Conservative one.

Nationalism is a pretty universal tenet of a conservative worldview in this day and age. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure every Republican presidential candidate since Alf Landon has run on a nationalistic platform and rhetoric (and even in Landon's case, more globalists views didn't come to the fore until his later life). Trump is simply placing nationalism at the front and centre of his campaign.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It depends. Is conservatism an ideology or a lifestyle? It degenerated to becoming a lifestyle over the last twenty years (Newt Gingrich and Bill Bennett are among the top architects of this) and that isn't changing under Trump aside from the content and context of the dogma.

[RINO Tom]

Calling conservatism a lifestyle is mind-numbingly stupid.  "I hold conservative views X, Y and Z, so everything I do is conservative!"

[Person Man]

If Trump wins, it will become a Nationalist Party. If he loses, it will revert to being a Conservative one.

Nationalism is a pretty universal tenet of a conservative worldview in this day and age. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure every Republican presidential candidate since Alf Landon has run on a nationalistic platform and rhetoric (and even in Landon's case, more globalists views didn't come to the fore until his later life). Trump is simply placing nationalism at the front and centre of his campaign.

Well, there is this notion of Populism that seems to separate them. Conservatism to me is just about having a national ideal that can be achieved without inductive or abstract thought or at least an national ideal that is wholely deducted. Nationalism to me is that it is not a national ideal but an ideal that our nation exists and is distinguished ourselves by these features that if we continue to distinguish and distinguish further, we will achieve all of our goals. They are similar, but not totally sub/supersets of each other or rely on each other.

For example, the difference between Dubya and the Donald. Dubya believes that what we and the rest of the world had always needed was discovered 2000 and that everything since then has been deducted from that. He believes that we can achieve goals through inductive thought but cannot create new ones that way or if they conflict with what he has deduced. Further, he believes these truths belong to all people, not just Americans. He simply believes that Americans are closer to the truth and are the most capable of the mission.

Teh Donald basically believes we great because we are American/White/Cultural Chirstian and that we are some sort of ideal on our own. God didn't tell us how accept in Him to be great, he created us as superior beings. Therefore, in order to achieve his goals, we must embrace all that God has created us to be and throw out all that has not or only add in what we truly want from others.

[angus]

Is the Republican party conservative?

Generally speaking nowadays, yes.  The fact that its highest-ranking officials have waited so long to embrace the nominee of the proletariat--and in some cases have not endorsed at all--evidences that conservative value system.  No doubt Trump is a wildcard, and he is not your Grandfather's Republican.  I'm still astonished, at moments, that the GOP voters have nominated him.  My suspicion is that they'll never admit that they were misled, but that they will know that it was a mistake.

Whether this tempest will blow over and leave the GOP values intact is something I don't claim to know, but at the moment I'd say that the party's platform and its published value system represents a conservative mindset.

Historically, the party is not mainly conservative, but rather mainly nationalistic.  They have always wrapped themselves up in God and the Flag.  This was the case at the Republican party's first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, and it was the case in the great war that nearly tore our nation apart--"Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the Vintage where the Grapes of Wrath are stord; He has loosed the fateful Lightening with his terrible, swift Sword; His Truth is marching on."  That bit has never changed.  Not in a hundred and fifty years.  In 2000, their nominee was still mainly talking about God and the Flag.  So it is abject nationalism, not necessarily conservatism, that drives the GOP.  In moments when those two concepts overlap, then you can use either to describe the GOP, but it is important to remember that nationalism, not conservatism, defines the party.

Trump, in my estimation, is a pimple, or perhaps a wart, on the nose of the face of the party.  The party faithful have chosen to pop that pimple rather than use an oxycreme pad.  Why they chose that approach is something I don't quite understand--perhaps they don't have the patience to let the oxypad work; perhaps they just enjoy a good splash of lymphatic fluid once in a while--but once the white fluid is all gone, I suspect that the Party of Lincoln will remember its nationalistic roots.  I don't think they'll keep squeezing it till blood comes out, but they might.  At the bottom of that pimple are some inflamed capillaries, and they might just continue to squeeze till some blood flows.  In any case, at some point they'll stop squeezing.  That will happen once they have accepted that there were missed opportunities.  There were many who might have defeated a flawed Clinton candidacy, and they'll return to their roots.  Whether those roots are "conservative" is a subject of debate.  Lincoln himself was something of a protectionist, not unlike Trump.  What he wasn't was a narcissistic real-estate mogul.  

I suspect that they'll do a minimalist soul-searching once the dust settles, deal with a president Clinton, who will have to deal with a Republican congress, and get their act together.

[hopper]

If Trump wins, it will become a Nationalist Party. If he loses, it will revert to being a Conservative one.

Nationalism is a pretty universal tenet of a conservative worldview in this day and age. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure every Republican presidential candidate since Alf Landon has run on a nationalistic platform and rhetoric (and even in Landon's case, more globalists views didn't come to the fore until his later life). Trump is simply placing nationalism at the front and centre of his campaign.

Landon was a very Liberal Republican for that particular time period.

[Wade McDaniel]

Not if they support Hillary. 

[hopper]

If Trump wins, it will become a Nationalist Party. If he loses, it will revert to being a Conservative one.

That's Likely since the GOP didn't change to a Barry Goldwater Conservatism till Reagan in 1980 since Goldwater got routed in 1964 and Reagan won in 1980!

[hopper]

Not anymore. Let's be honest here. It is dangerous, but it isn't conservative.

Nah its not dangerous. McConnell and Ryan want to make deals with Democrats not be obstructionists. McConnell and Ryan are smart to make deals with Democrats since the current President is a Democrat and the next President is gonna be a Democrat!

[ag]

No. At this point, it is radical reactionary.

The Republican Party isn't radical.

It has nominated the most radical major presidential candidate in over 100 years. Hard to call i anything else.