Makes sense. Lobbyists who donate to candidates are often ideologically similar to the policies the representatives campaign on. Like a conservative meeting with the NRA and not bothering to talking to Moms Demand Action or whatever the fuck it's called.

i think both bold are doing the same. i dont see any massive policy shifts tbh, just a tax plan that was preferred policy but never got done until now. its not like under trump the GOP has shifted on guns, immigration, regulation, crime, or HRC.

Policy realignment on what? The trade issue is obviously one, but Republican politicians are constantly pushing back on that. The tax reform was classic Republicanism. Trump obviously doesn't care about running up the debt, which is classic Republicanism in practice. The non-interventionism has been a strain of the Republican party for a while, and has steadily become more popular. Getting tough on illegal immigration has been a Republican talking point for decades, I know Trump likes to pretend nobody talked about it before him, that's just not true.

Jeff Flake is an outsider because he speaks out against Trump's behavior in office. Trump is governing mostly as a standard Republican, apart from trade. It's his party right now, but when he leaves the personality cult is going with him, and the next Republican president isn't going to be a populist.

many GOP politicians were talking tough on immigration before trump, but they never acted on it. moreover, trump has shifted the debate on immigration in a direction that is more in line with what voters truly care about: he was the one to raise the question whether legal immigration levels are too high, he was the one to question the green card lottery, he is the one who got the whole DACA/dreamer issue going and forced congress to no longer delay the issue.

a good summary is found in the following article:

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/14/17012358/immigration-congress-trump-daca







his realignment on the trade issue is also obvious, as you already mentioned. his approach to the north korea issue has also been a sharp break from the stance of clinton, bush and obama. we'll have to wait and see in which direction his foreign policy will be headed form here on out.

anyway, he has brought a severe realignment on the issues of trade, immigration and the stance with which the US interacts with foreign powers.

therefore, I'd say yes and no: yes, trump is governing like a standard republican when it comes to taxes and deregulation, but he is taking a more populist, centrist position on welfare state issues and fiscal responsibility, and he is taking a much more hardline stance on immigration, trade and certain aspects of foreign policy. he really isnt a standard republican, and the big question, of course, is whether his brand of republicanism will outlast his term in office or whether it will go away with him.

you seem to contradict yourself tho. you said politicians are offering lip service, but say they've realigned. Like do you honestly think the majority of the GOP now support protectionist trade, or are they just offering lip service?

Well, these anti-immigration Republicans didn't have a Republican president in office. People forget, but Romney had a pretty tough stance on illegal immigration in 2012, he also was the one candidate speaking out against China on trade issues. I think you are right that Trump brought attention to legal immigration issues, which is something mainstream Republicans don't like to focus on.

I think Trump's foreign policy is pretty close to normal in practice... although his rhetoric is not. But yeah, his positions on trade and legal immigration conflict with traditional Republicanism.

good point. what I meant is: we're in the middle of the realignment process. in the next years, many convinced anti-trump republicans like jeff flake will lose influence, resign or get primaried, while many republicans who are in line with the trump agenda will rise.

at the moment, the realignment is obviously just beginning and far from completed. and yes, if trump gets crushed in 2020, the "trump realignment" might get rolled back.

i don't think it's logical to expect protectionist trade to continue to grow in support. because i don't think the pro's of that will be heavy enough to outweigh the con's of it to get there. I'm not saying there are no pro's, or even that the con's outweigh the pro's by any wide margin. It's just that for a shift in our economic policy to take place you need really strong long lasting results. we're not getting that, and the "XXXX jobs returning" headlines aren't strong enough.

but yeah overall i think u just need a bit more distinction between lip service and realignment that's taken place, and realignment that could take place. i see a lot of lip service and a lot of maybes. i dont see a realignment on immigration at all, the wall is just the latest incarnation of a secure border which is a long standing position for the GOP.

lol? just 5 years ago, in 2013, a sizeable chunk of the GOP caucus was willing to sign a comprehensive amnesty for up to 11 million illegal aliens into law.

and they don't actually support funding the wall today. it's all lip service. they talked for years about a secure border, like 20 years, ever wonder why no one actually suggested a wall? because they knew they couldn't get it funded. it was all lip service to look tough on an issue while padding some funding for ICE and other man powered border security.

i bet if you took a secret poll of all the GOP you'd find the wall is nothing but a thorn in their side. its trump's big threat and a budgeting nightmare.

it's not as if a wall is a brilliant innovation, its the easiest thing to get stupid people in favor of.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 26 2018 11:59am