Jump to content


Photo

When RINOS Ruled the GOP


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Windshieldfly

Windshieldfly

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • LocationEnd of 246

Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:57 PM

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0199768404

 

Pretty interesting book...shows the power struggles within the GOP since the Eisenhower years.

 

 

 

 


In a world where I feel so small

I can't stop drinking gin.....


#2 Moving Target

Moving Target

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,293 posts
  • LocationThe Duchy of Cornwall

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:45 PM

dv425045.jpg



#3 Windshieldfly

Windshieldfly

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • LocationEnd of 246

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:57 PM

http://www.riponsoci...org/history.htm


In a world where I feel so small

I can't stop drinking gin.....


#4 Planet X-1

Planet X-1

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,776 posts
  • LocationRight Field

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:08 PM

A typical and well -reasoned review:

 

"The book title implies that the book will provide a balanced and complete summary of the rightward movement of the Republican Party from 1960 through 2010. Unfortunately, the book does not deliver. Instead, eight of the twelve chapters are focused solely on the period from 1960 through 1968. Two chapters are devoted to the early Nixon presidential years. One chapter is devoted to the 1970s. And only one chapter is devoted to the entire thirty years from 1980 through 2010.

The book deserves 1 star, but I gave it 2 stars because of the potential for research material from the 1960s."


Proud Knobhead


#5 Windshieldfly

Windshieldfly

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • LocationEnd of 246

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:52 PM

^^^Yeah, I have that same complaint with the book. It's like the author got tired and rushed through the latter years. Balanced, yes; complete, not so much. It's history, not opinion.

 

But the point of the book is that the GOP used to be a coalition of various opinions (including pro-labor, pro-civil rights, and pro-environment), and that RINOs have been targeted for decades as folks who need to be expunged from the party. Mission accomplished!


In a world where I feel so small

I can't stop drinking gin.....


#6 Windshieldfly

Windshieldfly

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • LocationEnd of 246

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:56 PM

A typical and well -reasoned review:

 

 

 

One 2-star rating oot of 24? Not that typical.

 

Of course, if that was your review PX1 (and assuming you actually read the book), of course it's well-reasoned!

 

;)


In a world where I feel so small

I can't stop drinking gin.....


#7 Windshieldfly

Windshieldfly

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • LocationEnd of 246

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:01 PM

From another review...not mine. 

There always had been a conservative element within the Republican party, of course, but Kabaservice argues that the rebellious conservatives of the `60s -- militant right-wingers who had been strongly influenced by Joe McCarthy -- were a different breed. Republicans of the time period considered them "a totally new element" in the party and regarded their value system as a "weird parody" of traditional Republican beliefs. Their appearance had coincided with McCarthy's rise to power, and they became a more vocal and determined group in the late `50s and early `60s. Like Joe McCarthy, these new conservatives believed that the US was run by "a traitorous elite"of wealthy Eastern intellectuals. In their minds, moderate Republicans, also known as progressive or liberal Republicans, were part of this hated elite. Since its founding, the Republican party had included liberal Republicans as well as conservatives, but the New Right believed that any kind of liberalism "led inexorably to socialism and Communism, and that the smallest government effort to provide for the general welfare constituted the first step on `The Road to Serfdom'..." Unlike previous generations of conservative Republicans, who had respected intellect, kept their religious views private, sought to preserve the existing political system, and were not bound by any particular ideology, the New Right was anti-intellectual, ideologically-driven, and ultimately came to be dominated by the religious right. Most importantly, the new conservatives wanted to overthrow the existing system, getting rid of the moderate Republicans even at the risk of damaging the Republican party irreparably.

Kabaservice says that the New Right was so intent upon ridding the party of its moderate members that it pursued a "rule or ruin" strategy, supporting the opponents of moderate Republican politicians even if they were liberal Democrats. Their efforts to destroy moderate Republicanism were successful, in part due to weaknesses inherent in the moderate stance - by its nature, moderation is less passionate and less driven than extremism, and its adherents are less likely to adopt a "take-no-prisoners, ends-justify-the-means" approach to politics. Kabaservice writes that in recent years, "movement conservatism finally succeeded in silencing, co-opting, repelling, or expelling nearly every competing strain of Republicanism from the party, to the extent that the terms `liberal Republican' or `moderate Republican' have practically become oxymorons."

This book provides a lot of historical perspective. I'm so accustomed to thinking of the Republican party as a mostly white, non-racially inclusive political organization that I often forget that this is the party of Lincoln, founded out of opposition to slavery. This book reminded me that Republicans have a strong civil rights heritage. It was interesting to learn that the vast majority of mid-`60s Republicans were infuriated by Goldwater's segregationist views and regarded him as a demagogue and dangerous zealot. It also was interesting to learn that a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1960, way before the civil rights movement had really caught fire, GOP nominee Richard Nixon's civil rights plank was as strong as the Democrats', supporting sit-ins and promising federal intervention in securing job equality for African-Americans. In fact, African-Americans didn't start defecting to the Democratic Party in droves until 1964 -- Eisenhower received 39% of the black vote in 1956. All of this seems strange to me because it's so different from the Republican party I know.

Also strange, as mentioned earlier, is the fact that Eisenhower would have been considered liberal in many respects by today's standards. He invested heavily in education and public works. He decried unnecessary military spending, which he considered out of keeping with fiscal conservatism and which he felt often came at the expense of human needs. Here's a great Eisenhower quote from 1953: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." Can you imagine a Republican today saying that?

 

Is this not true? If so, 'splain please.


In a world where I feel so small

I can't stop drinking gin.....





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users