When did the Republican Party become the Party of the Left?

And by this I don't mean such trivialties as promoting economic redistribution, which the Republicans obviously do not. I mean something more fundamental: when did the GOP choose to sacrifice all credibility upon the altar of populism, and begin to speak out of the bloodied mouth of the vox populi?

If you don't believe it, my conservative friends, then I'd recommend you read What's The Matter With Kansas?. Though I am almost the political opposite of Frank Rich, I nevertheless agree with his unstated conclusion: the Republican Party's descent into the puerile strata of populism, fueled by its reliance on the socially conservative blue-collar vote, marks a fundamental shift in the political situation: any Republican who pines for the days when the Reagan Raiders rode to the defense of Wall Street and had only to throw a bone to the masses on social issues is a downright imbecile.

There are the facts: Populism is of the Left. Elitism is of the Right. I welcome the charge of elitism as directed against myself, though I am likely poorer than a vast majority of posters here. And I am also a Democrat. My favorite liberals are latte-liberals. I hate the culture of Middle America, and I hate Middle Americans. I am also a libertarian, who "worships at the church of the market", to use Rich's phrase.

Whither this change?

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Comments

An error, and some other comments

Thomas Frank, not Frank Rich, is the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" I've never read the book, but as I understand his thesis, it's that the American economic elite uses phony right-wing "populism"--wedge "issues" like prayer in school and anti-gay nonsense--to put themselves in office and keep themselves there, where they proceed to do things like deindustrialize the country and drive down wages, harming the very people they pretend to represent. That's not a particularly controversial thesis, if I've correctly represented it. No savvy political observer could have missed it for decades. I've written a lot about it myself recently.

We are, at present, in the middle of a major astroturf campaign aimed at things like defeating health-care reform. The teabagger "movement" is 100% created, funded, organized, and fed by huge money interests who have built it and maintained it as a vehicle for pursuing policies that narrowly benefit only themselves. Their foot-soldiers are the usual useful idiots, who have been organized around nonsense like Obama being a sercret Muslim, not a U.S. citzien, a socialist, a fascist, one who pushes health care reform that covers illegal aliens and abortion and includes "death panels" to kill granny, and--the latest--one for whom ACORN stole the last presidential election. While this nonsense is what has been used to organize the phony "movement," none of it has any basis in reality. Without some understanding of the dynamic outlined above, the events of this year are literally inexplicable.

Does "elitist" mean fact based?

It's not so much that we need someone with an Ivy League resume.  Truman didn't go to college at all.  We need someone who will recognize facts.  Here's a test of your credentials.  In each case there's a correct answer and a Palin/Republican answer:

1. Did humans evolve from "monkeys" (non-human animals)?  (extra credit: (a) is the Earth more than 6000 years old?  (b) Was the Grand Canyon carved by the flood of Noah?)

2. Does the CBO scoring of the Senate (or House) health care reform bill predict that the bill will increase the federal budget deficit?

3. Is there a global warming trend in progress that is largely caused by human activity?

4. Did the Obama stimulus package add more than 30% of our current federal budget deficit?  Did it add more or less than the Bush tax cuts?  Than the Bush TARP program?  Than the Bush Medicare Part D?