In the 1990s, the GOP Got a Hard Push to the Right

Via Pat Buchanan

By Michael Bobelian – The Washington Post

Pat Buchanan speaks at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston.
Pat Buchanan speaks at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston. “There is a religious war going on in this country,” he told the delegates. “It is a cultural war … for the soul of America.” (Ron Edmonds/AP)

In the long run, history will validate Donald Trump’s stand on a border wall,” Patrick Buchanan, the former Nixon and Reagan White House aide and Republican presidential candidate, wrote in 2019. “Why? Because mass migration from the global South … is the real existential crisis of the West.” Having proselytized for NAFTA’s repeal, isolationism and the “Buchanan fence” across the Mexican border decades before Trump burst into the political arena, Buchanan urged the president to fend off the “multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural” changes he had long railed against. The op-ed ended with a catchphrase with odious origins: “‘America First!’ is still a winning hand.”

Though Buchanan was years removed from the limelight, the fact that he parroted Trump’s agenda cast light on the improbable journey of the Republican Party away from Ronald Reagan’s principles to take shape as a far more conservative and partisan political force.

Identifying the causes of this radical transformation has engrossed political chroniclers for years. Nearly universally, scholars point to Barry Goldwater’s seminal role in the rise of modern conservatism in the 1960s. This was followed a decade later by the ascension of the New Right, which radicalized the party by stoking racial grievances and exploiting contentious social issues. As one of its leaders, Howard Phillips, explained at the time, “We organize discontent.”

In “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries who Remade American Politics in the 1990s,” Nicole Hemmer, a scholar at the Obama Presidency Oral History Project at Columbia University and a co-founder of The Washington Post’s daily historical analysis section, Made by History, makes an insightful contribution to this body of work by examining how a new breed of Republicans propelled the party further to the right in the 1990s, steering it away from Reagan even as they continued to pledge allegiance to the former president’s legacy.

Casting Buchanan as a beacon of this movement, Hemmer tracks the party’s adoption of his views and imitation of his pugilistic style despite Buchanan’s exile from the GOP after his surprising 1992 presidential run.

While Buchanan’s stridency displaced the GOP’s country club mores, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s brash demeanor and combative approach polarized Washington during the 1990s. Though politics had always been a combat sport, both parties had regularly collaborated, limiting their biggest confrontations to genuine and consequential disputes throughout the Cold War. Hemmer ably recounts the pitched battles between Gingrich and President Bill Clinton, culminating in Clinton’s impeachment, that shattered this status quo and led Republicans to demonize Democrats, which made coexistence with the opposition, let alone cooperation, repugnant. Gingrich’s “state of perpetual warfare” and “constant revolution” also purged the GOP of moderates and turned its focus away from governing to a fixation on obstructionism highlighted by multiple government shutdowns, a playbook followed by congressional Republicans since 2009.

A new generation of right-wing media pundits encouraged these tactics. As Hemmer points out, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Dinesh D’Souza and lesser-known copycats chastised Republicans for striking deals in a constitutional framework designed for compromise. No matter how intractable or mean-spirited they seemed, their capacity to induce outrage and deliver political entertainment skyrocketed their popularity on talk radio and cable television: Limbaugh, the most prominent of the bunch, emerged as the party’s kingmaker.

Considering Hemmer’s description of the GOP’s evolution, it comes as no surprise that by 2020, there were only remnants of Reagan’s legacy. Republicans maintained conservative positions on religious liberty, gay rights and other social issues, and espoused a strong military and lower taxes while paying lip service to a smaller government and budgetary restraint.

Unbending positions on other hot-button issues, however, bore little resemblance to Reagan’s. His willingness to raise taxes, support modest gun-control measures and grant amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants would have made him anathema among current Republicans.

Just as significant, the party’s populist rhetoric and isolationism turned its back on free markets and globalization, concepts it had erstwhile cast in divine terms.

From a stylistic standpoint, the differences were starker. Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” beamed with optimism when espousing America’s virtues as a “shining city upon a hill.” Gloomy, resentful and boiling with rage, conservative firebrands, on the other hand, approached politics with apocalyptic fervor. “There is a religious war going on in this country,” Buchanan declared at the 1992 GOP convention, for instance. “It is a cultural war … for the soul of America.”

No one personified this dramatic shift in temperament more than Trump. He gleefully belittled his opponents with pejorative nicknames, mocked venerated public officials such as John McCain, and made sexist, racist and xenophobic remarks. When protesters clashed with his supporters, his campaign rallies carried the vibe of professional wrestling events. In one instance, Trump urged the audience to “knock the crap out of them.” Despite the hand-wringing by party leaders like Paul Ryan, Trump’s dominance became evident during the 2016 Republican convention when the delegates — mimicking the rowdier crowds at his rallies — chanted “lock her up” in repeated calls to imprison Hillary Clinton.

While Hemmer and others — Dana Milbank’s “The Destructionists” comes to mind — have comprehensively explored the roots of the GOP’s metamorphosis over the past 60 years, the Democrats’ failure to effectively challenge this brand of conservatism has received less scrutiny. As Democrats moved to the right under Bill Clinton, they allowed Republicans to set the agenda and, with a few exceptions like the Affordable Care Act, spent most of their energy trying to preserve the liberal accomplishments of the Great Society rather than offering compelling alternatives. Their focus on national elections also ceded control of state governments to the GOP, allowing Republicans to enact ever-more extreme legislation on abortion and gun control over the past three decades.

The more pressing question is why the GOP’s base has been so willing to tolerate if not condone crass behavior, racist overtones, political violence and authoritarian threats to democracy even in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and Trump’s far-fetched stolen-election claims. This collective mind-set has granted him cultlike status: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” he famously boasted in 2016. “It’s like incredible.”

Political observers have offered economic insecurity, racism, xenophobia, globalization, gerrymandering, misinformation, siloed media consumption, social media and authoritarian tendencies as a credible yet frightening list of explanations. For anyone studying the rise of right-wing extremism, the next step is to go beyond making these diagnoses to finding a cure for them.

Michael Bobelian teaches journalism at Columbia University and is the author of “Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court.” Read more at The Washington Post…

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
20 Comments
Ooze the other one
Ooze the other one
September 20, 2022 7:25 pm

Well, gosh and golly gee! Why not dust off the other “relevant” (living would be a good qualification, too!) political pundits from The McLaughlin Group, like Eleanor Clift or Morton Kondrake (mor-TAN, in Jack Germond’s dialect)

I really want to know James Carville’s take on this subject, too!

Where is the likes of Jack Germond when you need a halfway decent political reporter? He was probably the most honest journalist I remember from that era, besides Helen Thomas.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Ooze the other one
September 20, 2022 7:59 pm

Eleanor Cliff …”let me finish!!!”…
McLaughlin …” 1 to 10 with 10 being 100% metaphysical certitude”…
Jack Germond gargling in his own phlegm while talking.
I loved that show.

falconflight
falconflight
  Anonymous
September 20, 2022 9:47 pm

Hey old timer. We use to watch it pretty much without fail ;0

Ooze the other one
Ooze the other one
  falconflight
September 20, 2022 10:27 pm

So, you might have the same Pavlovian response as I do to the opening theme to “Wall Street Week, with Louis Rukeyser.” His show always followed The McLaughlin Group on the PBS station where I lived.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
September 20, 2022 7:42 pm

comment image

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
September 20, 2022 7:48 pm

This guy thinks he’s seen a “hard push to the right”. Lol.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Iska Waran
September 20, 2022 9:07 pm

comment image

falconflight
falconflight
  Anonymous
September 20, 2022 9:49 pm

Yeah outta view all the way to Alpha Centauri…

VOWG
VOWG
  falconflight
September 21, 2022 6:20 am

Cute that they labeled left right and right left.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  VOWG
September 21, 2022 5:25 pm

Here is a more accurate one for you.

comment image

anon also
anon also
September 20, 2022 8:50 pm

Good to know ya read this pat. See ya FINALLY took the pic of you & tricky DICK standin’ on the tarmac in china ‘Down’…a Mere snippet acknowledging your COMPLICITY presence.

“r. Buchanan was a member of the official US delegation to the Peoples Republic of China in 1972,”

Part-n-Parcel of selling THIS COUNTRY DOWN THE RIVER…in a manner of speaking, of course.

‘Euphemism’. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

falconflight
falconflight
  anon also
September 20, 2022 9:50 pm

Opening diplomatic relations is a bit removed from selling out this country.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  falconflight
September 20, 2022 10:00 pm

Opened up a few ‘diplomatic relations’ in my day. some were overtly hostile. apparently my reputation proceeded me. Those were the BEST.

Fucked the shit out of ’em. Too.

TampaRed
TampaRed
  anon also
September 20, 2022 10:23 pm

pat was called isolationist b/c he was so strident about protecting american culture & american biz–

lamont cranston
lamont cranston
September 20, 2022 9:09 pm

On the whole, Pat has been good for our side. Met him in 2000 in Spartanburg, SC, where Roger Milliken was funding his campaign big time. Roger lived across Otis Blvd. from my girlfriend Betty Anne at that time. Had a 4-5 minute long conversation with Pat, a smart, organized and focused man.

So, he went to church Red China, So what?

Anonymous
Anonymous
  lamont cranston
September 20, 2022 9:51 pm

hey Mr. Cranston,

Notice you @ wilder occasionally. NO IDEA why the pic was removed. 3rd grade iirc. Wheeled out the TV’s at the experimental school i was attending.

Just establishing ‘Diplomatic Relations’. Where did it go so Horribly Wrong?

Different milkin’ than the one the one pardoned, i presume?

Just kiddin’. thanks to the munificence of algore…

falconflight
falconflight
September 20, 2022 9:47 pm

“…far more conservative and partisan political force…”

Utter garbagespeak…

TampaRed
TampaRed
September 20, 2022 10:16 pm

“His willingness to raise taxes, support modest gun-control measures and grant amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants would have made him anathema among current Republicans.”

the writer lies by omission–he reminds me of the post last night by michael gerson,or this guy jeffrey tucker that has been posted a bunch lately–
back to reagan–maybe the reason current republicans would not support his current positions is that he was rolled on every compromise he made–
when reagan agreed to raise taxes,his deal w/the dems was that 4 every $1 increase in taxes,there would be a $2 cut in spending–
did that happen?was reagan rolled or was it a fig leaf so reagan could raise taxes?

amnesty to 3 million illegals–because of chain migration that 3 million turned into far more,leaving aside the fact that the dems agreed to control the border,which of course they did not–

gun control?leaving aside that the us constitution has no provisions 4 gun control,the feds lie to enact backdoor gun control & gun registries– any gunowner who doesn’t understand that is too stupid to vote or make any type of decision 4 themselves other than what color combo they want 4 today’s wardrobe–
you guys ought to go back thru the article & pick it apart–

btw,buchanan would have been a great potus–

Aunt Acid
Aunt Acid
September 21, 2022 12:00 am

Pat’s a smart guy and would have done good things for America.
Gooder things for ‘Murka, maybe?

Simple question: What’s Pat’s take on the WEPH program? It would be all Auntie would like to know from a two-wings-of-the-same-bird perspective. Aye?

Obbledy
Obbledy
September 21, 2022 7:51 am

Fuck Reagans principles!
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES PEOPLE!!!
thats the only way…..
Nationalism seeks to CHANGE a countries mores and traditions.
PATRIOTISM seeks to change a countries mores and traditions.
Which are you?……