... and turning Christianity inside-out so that the red words in the bible are of th' DEVIL. I can't think of a better description of the Antichrist.

He brought the religious right into the tent and that led to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and those narrow-minded social conservatives' eventual take-over of the GOP.

They formed a symbiotic relationship with reagan and it has hardened over the decades into the hate-fest that characterizes the repuke party. The rise of vitriolic wing-nut radio was another factor.

JMO

years. All I even remember about his tenure was that nothing changed. Ideologue, he was not. At least
to my mind at the time.

But, you are right, Reagan planted the seeds.

His acting ability convinced many to forget substance and go for hating disguised as Americana values.

so I think it's even deeper than that. ALthough heads are exploding over our current president.

It is deeper than just racism. However, I think this had exacerbated the issue.
Not only that, by not taking Republicans to task to their chicanery during the Bush years, it basically told them that the crap they did is ok. Then, by taking their positions, it allowed them to ask for more and more and more, because it doesn't matter what you give them, as long as they can find a way to change the narrative and make it negative, even if they were the ones who first espoused such a position, they will go after it and ask for more.

Hence, I thought it was naive of Obama to have immediately gone for the middle in many issues during the first quarter before the 2010 elections. One could easily note that many of the laws that passed during that term were Republican ideas and things they have been trying to pass for years. In negotiating from the middle position, the Republicans hosed the Democrats in to accepting crap that would not have passed during the Bush years, crazily enough.

Still, stating that, I would still vote Obama as he was running against Palin. McCain would be dead by now had he won the Presidency. Obama saved McCain's life as he would not have been able to handle the stress.

Garbage in, garbage out. Was the first thing I learned in programming language skills: “if you input the wrong data, the results will also be wrong.”

Truman tried to pass universal healthcare in 1947 and the GOP voted it down. He viciously attacked them as the "do-nothing" party/congress in the 1948 election and they never had the majority for another 45 years.

in the recent past with the stolen election of 2000 and GWB's presidency.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/

Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his 2006 book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics. He argued that much of American history has been characterized by a struggle between two historical factions among the American elite — and that the election of George W. Bush was a definitive sign that the wrong side was winning.

For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic ofnoblesse oblige (the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society). While they’ve done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued them with the belief that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty to do something positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your own legacy depended on this.

snip

David Hackett Fischer, whose Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways In Americainforms both Lind’s and Woodard’s work, described just how deeply undemocratic the Southern aristocracy was, and still is. He documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds that they have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, far preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing them at a problem whenever possible. Why buy a bulldozer when 150 convicts on a chain gang can grade your road instead?) Unlike the Puritan elites, who wore their wealth modestly and dedicated themselves to the common good, Southern elites sank their money into ostentatious homes and clothing and the pursuit of pleasure — including lavish parties, games of fortune, predatory sexual conquests, and blood sports involving ritualized animal abuse spectacles.

I think this case is pretty over-stated, but has the fundamentals right.

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html  

In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state. This objective was carried out by the Reagan administration (Abramovitz, 1992). After taking office in 1981, the administration set out on a course to alter the (relatively) labor sensitive political economy to be more business friendly. Reagan appointed anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board, "implicitly {granting} employers permission to revive long shunned anti-union practices: decertifying unions, outsourcing production, and hiring permanent replacements for striking workers" (102). Reagan himself pursued such a policy when he fired eleven thousand striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Regulations designed to protect the environment , worker safety, and consumer rights were summarily decried as unnecessary government meddling in the marketplace (Abramovitz, 1992; Barlett and Steele, 1996). Programs designed to help the poor were also characterized as "big government," and the people who utilized such programs were often stigmatized as lazy or even criminal. With the help of both political parties, the administration drastically cut social welfare spending and the budgets of many regulatory agencies.

The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives " (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

What you have to realize is that the most of the people who voted for Reagan ... twice, and caused this mess we are currently in are still around. And there are a lot of them too. Some of them even identify themselves as liberals on anonymous political web sites.

Don

Stayin' Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class

http://books.google.com/books/about/Stayin_Alive.html?id=h9acQrZmpmAC

Quick sketch of about half of this book: Nixon set out to deliberately destroy FDR's New Deal Coalition (which reached across parties, race, and economic classes) and replace it with his Southern Strategy, by first using Labor to back his double dealing on the Viet Nam War and then by playing bait-and-switch with George Meaney, with the carrot being power to shape labor policy. Meaney went for it, with appx. 50% of American labor behind him, but was in over his head, so he was double-crossed by Nixon and neutralized, and the rest of labor, or at least the white males in the more powerful unions were bribed with high wages and benefits, which exacerbated race issues amongst Labor and thus contributed to the rise of Nixon's Southern Strategy and without a movement to bring pressure on economic class war, labor was then divided-and-conquered with identity politics, where Labor has been ever since until now when those of the working class who had previous profited from these relationships (white males mostly) have now also been turned on with outsourcing and downward pressure on wages, jobs, and benefits.

I also think Watergate started a cycle of payback politics.

He blamed America's problems on unions, Cadillac queens & liberals. Worse, when Reagan & the right started demonizing the word liberal, democrats folded. They backed down from the word. The repubs saw the dems were weak & took advantage of it. Now the dems back down from lots of liberal policies & even implement policies that are really republican. NAFTA? A dem president did that? Really?

Another factor is the decreased quality of polite behavior in our society in general. Rudeness is more acceptable.

If I had to pinpoint an event, that would be it--the coming together of this plan. As far as a date, it's been gradual.

There once was a time when republicans were a legitimate political party. Nixon, however, had a plan to ally with business.

That plan has now been completed and has existed for some time.

The republican party is not really a political party. It is just a front for big business. The only people who call themselves republicans are the sadly naive who have no idea of what has really happened to this party.

The republican party is actually run by marketing people for power/money addicts like the Koch Bros. The issues are decided upon by the marketing people, who get their information from the r-w think tanks, all of which operate under tax-free status, mining the events in the country for issues they politicize and sensationalize.

I think the party is on the ropes, however, per Krugman's column a few months ago, which demonstrated how their issues are so far out now that fewer and fewer people can identify or support them.

Also, things have changed in the country. The demographics are against all that they have invested in over the past few decades.


Cher

without a single good and decent Republican, conservative yet caring, bucking the system and
disclosing this secret enterprise?

They also have purchased the media & the educational system so they can spoon feed their lies to the dumbed down public 24x7.

We are between a rock & a hard place & getting out ain't gonna be pretty!

now, because it unites authentic Lefties with subversive Republicans, if I read the FB TEA-leaves right.

And that's just fucking perfect, because the NDAA can be used as a self-fulfilling-prophecy, thank you John McCain.

But, I feel people stopped caring during the Reagan administration. Then cable news and internet came on the scene. Now, news is entertainment, and there is no accountability.

Calling it the (unspeakable) "L-word." The small-minded fanatics picked up on the idea and carried it to the radical extreme that obviously continues today aided by media that are no longer tempered by the Fairness Doctrine (thanks again to Reagan).

I suspect globalization has led to some detachment as many businesses are longer dependent on Americans for their workforce. Consequently they don't *necessarily* give a damn about the health, education, and welfare of Americans anymore.

I applaud those in the media--specifically Chris Wallace of Fox--who in the past few days have pressed Mitch McConnell and other Republicans for their plan to replace the ACA they are determined to repeal. Of course they awkwardly don't have an answer because they don't care about insuring millions of uninsured Americans.

led to people believing that caring about people (what liberals do) is bad too? I have
never understood why our people fell for this and other than a handful (Kennedy pops
to mind), wouldn't proudly call themselves liberals.

I agree about businesses not caring. Besides globalization, I think it also has
a lot to do with the pressures to keep growing income to keep the instant business
news people propping up their stock prices. The only way to do that is to cut
salaries and pensions.

Also agree, sometimes it seems that Wallace puts the pressure on more than the
liberal media. How does he get away with it? Why don't they hate him?

Republicans hated the press during Watergate. Spiro Agnew hated the press. Roger Ailes got his start then and developed a plan that would lead to the creation of Fox News.

They developed think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and consultants like Frank Luntz, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove who trained to "frame" issues in ways that were adept in deceiving the public, hiding their true agendas of power and money.

Somehow the crazies have now gone so far, reached such levels in government, that the more rational among them are marginalized by threats of finding candidates to challenge them in the primary and taken down. Fall in line or they will not get to keep their Congressional or lower governmental seats.

Combine the skills of "framing" the issues in ways that always keep the opposing political party on the defensive with secrecy and a distaste for the media. It is easy to see a pattern that fits the current times.

which still tries to fight the Civil War. Beginning the "southern strategy" hatched by Pat Buchanan for Nixon and continuing through the active embracing of the "moral majority," the Republicans have crystallized support from those who still think that slavery wasn't so bad, women are unequal, and are perfectly fine with using religion to enforce those beliefs. Today's Republican party as become the standard bearer for groups in society which were drummed underground for a while. Crawling out from under their rocks, the KKK, Nazi's, Burchers, and every disreputable and base organization have achieved legitimacy under the Rovian machine.

a big contingency of people who would follow blindly. They gave up on the normal, sane, intelligent
middle and left Republicans - just blew them off. So, the coalition is - Like you say - People who still thing
slavery is ok and the Plutocracy of the wealthy and powerful. Mathematically, it is probably not enough without
some fringe Independents.

The leadership-both open and covert-are acting out of pure cynical self-interested greed and power.
The rank and file are manipulated into the belief that they can't stand the fact that there's a Black Man in the WH and he's not the butler along with using religion to cloud what little thinking they do.

which outlined a strategy for the right to aggressively attack certain elements of our society.
As the left either pulled back or put up no resistance, they pushed further and harder.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

Isn't that enough?

1. The increasing influence of money in politics
2. The consolidation of our communications media into the hands of a few wealthy corporations and people

Both these things have caused BOTH parties to trend way to the right. What you said about the Republican Party is true. But it is also true that the Democratic Party's turning to the right is a major reason why they haven't put up much of a fight. Both Parties feel the need to please the big moneyed interests and the corporate communications media, which are both far right wing forces, at least on economic matters.

movement into the party imo.

His influence changed everything.

Under the guise of "god".

To gain the influence this was a two-pronged coalescence of ideas.

The first period you can find roots in Goldwater's campaign. This would be the Libertarian wing, anti-government wing. This movement took shape more so in the 1970s with the rise of think tanks as the right started to get their ducks in a row.

The second period was the 1980s, Regan and the christian right slid comfortably right alongside the Libertarian wing.

So you had this party that essentially was overtly religious, not only religious theologically speaking, but religious economically (unbridled capitalism is like a religion).

While the two don't necessarily see eye to eye as the religious right have no interest in preserving the 1st amendment the two so far have worked in concert basically because the enemy (the left) is to be hated:

1-One group hates Liberals because Liberals believe government can do good things
2-The other group hates Liberals because Liberals are hostile toward theocracy

The Democratic Party ruled all levels of government since the Great Depression. And the country kept moving forward. It culminated in the 60s and 70s when, even where I grew up in the Bible Belt, "nigger" became an unacceptable word in most quarters.

Carter then inherited double-digit inflation and was hit by the Iranian hostage crises. The mood in America was down and his Rose Garden strategy only emphasized that. It was the perfect setting for personality over substance. And who fits that bill better than a former actor promising simple solutions (which made no sense; but it made people feel good).

There might have also been some backswing of the political pendulum. But it is notable that the social progress that so upset Conservatives was largely left intact. There has undoubtedly been backsliding. Overt racism is more acceptable than it was in the '70s. And the War on Drugs and War on Alcohol have turned a lot of rural communities into virtual wastelands of hate and anger. So there was a backswing socially, but not much in government.

Eight years later Democrats nominated a guy who just didn't fire people up. Four years after that, it was the Republican nominee who lacked luster. And the political pendulum had certainly swung back. I know it was just a line from a movie, but it pretty much described the attitude in 1992 that, "the 90s are going to make the 80s look like the 60s made the 50s."

Democrats finally had a candidate with better personality than the Republicans. And the people wanted to undo a lot of the damage done by Reagan. Unfortunately, politicians are, by and large, not the sharpest pencils in the box. Their only job requirement is to win a popularity contest. And when did smart people become popular?

So ignoring personality (while nominating just that) they concluded that twelve years of Republican Presidential rule meant they should swing Right. And a bunch of Republican supporters were happy to fund Democrats who would move the party Right. This in turn let the Republicans move further Right. And we have been regressing ever since.

We have simply reached the point where there isn't much room to the Right of the Democratic Party. So Republicans have nowhere left to go, but pure extremism.

This was, of course, the goal of the DLC/etc. Force the Republicans so far Right that nobody will vote for them. Unfortunately, aside from getting political jobs for people with a (D) after their name, all we have done is given them everything they want. But, hey, we get the jobs. And that's all we really want, isn't it?

Year over year, the Democratic Party has been the money party far longer than the republicans. The most significant division between the parties is race, and race has tipped the balance since the 19th century. The Democrats supported the notion of the south's "peculiar institution" and got the racist vote for a hundred years. Then LBJ pushed the Great Society onto the scene and the racists switched to the republicans.

As the republicans turn ever more into the party of racists and the insane, the current divisions are mostly within the Democratic Party, which is paralyzed it as it tries to accommodate groups that hold diametrically opposing world views. There is no accommodation for anti-choice vs. pro-choice, pro-labor vs. "free trade", authoritarian vs. egalitarian.