[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

It was both, and other things besides. The old FDR coalition had fractured over both economic and social issues, and Carter had a knack for saying and doing precisely the wrong thing to accelerate the matter. Don't make the mistake, BTW, of thinking that 'fundamentalist' and 'social conservative' mean the same thing. They overlap but most socons aren't fundamentalists and some fundamentalists are social libs, too.

The vast majority of the fundamentalists active in politics came in via Reagan's "Big Tent," and promptly began to label the traditional Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans as "RINOs" and did everything they could to throw them out of the party.

The percentage of fundamentalists who break to the left on social issues amount to little more than a rounding error.

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Actually, King was mostly frosting, it would have happened approximately the same way without him (or rather, someone else would have filled a somewhat similar role). The rise of the civil rights movement as we think of that went back to the 1920s, and the civil rights movement of the 1950s was the culmination of decades of work and effort.

I think you and I are saying the same thing, here. The country had already begun the shift, as you said, and by the early 1960s we were ready to address segregation, systemic discrimination and institutional racism.

King articulated the issues, beautifully, but we were ready for change, anyway, and that's why people listened to him. Please note, I never said King made the Civil Rights movement possible. I said people listened to him because they were already ready to hear what he had to say.

Even then, the reason they listened to him, and not to Malcolm or Carmichael, was because King came across as a reasonable reformer, and not an angry radical extremist.

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

No. The GOP is not far-right at all. They're barely conservative, and they actively dislike and detest their own voters. That's why they've been losing. The idea that the GOP is dominated by a 'far right' is easily disprovable simply by looking at their actions.

Sorry, Johnny, but you're wrong.

Based on what I've seen you post, here, in the past year, I believe the reason you don't believe the GOP is right wing is because you are further out to the right than most of them.

You may not be an extremist, per se, but you're on the rightward fringe of American political views.

Most Americans are pro-choice, in at least some circumstances.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...over-abortion/

Most Americans favor separation of church and state, favor a path to citizenship for immigrants (especially those brought here as children), and are okay with the presence of Muslims in the United States.

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-co...can-Report.pdf

Compare those findings to what the candidates say when they address the voter base, during the primary campaign season.

Now then, you are correct in that the national GOP leadership is probably more moderate than the base, and favors de-regulation and limited government spending (on everything except the military and infrastructure) much more than they do social issues.

However, the most active of the GOP rank-and-file are much more conservative than the U.S., as a whole. It's costing them elections, and that's why the GOP leadership is so dismayed.

In point of fact, Democrats took more votes in the House of Representative races, in 2014. The only reason the GOP won was because the Republican-dominated legislatures gerrymandered the district boundaries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...got-a-mandate/

This took place during an off-year election, which usually favors the party that doesn't have the presidency, and it took place during a year with a low voter turnout, which usually favors the GOP. Despite both of those factors, the GOP still won fewer votes than did the Democrats, overall, and only kept the U.S. House because the GOP legislatures drew the boundaries.

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Again, no.

The backlash, such as it was, was in the 90s, and over by 2000. The politics since then have little to do with Reagan or Carter, and everything to do with an emerging aristocrat vs. commoner divide on both economic and social issues. It's not Democrat vs. Republican, it's elite Dem/GOP vs street level Dem/GOP, though the latter are only just now starting to react to that. One reason both parties ' elites are meeting such resistance to their preferred candidates (Jeb and Hillary) is that more and more people see them as two faces of one outfit (even aside from the distasteful dynastic aspect of it).

It's true 911 covered that up for a little while, but it was out in the open by 2006.

I think you make a cogent point about how things work on the GOP side of the fence, but on the Democratic side, there is much less in the way of a problematic divide between the party leadership and the rank-and-file. Partly, that's because the Democrats have always been divided; they're used to it, and have learned to deal with it by wheeling-and-dealing, as needed.

Also, it's because union Democrats are far less powerful than in the past (and you can thank Reagan for that), as compared to the "limousine liberal" adherents to the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) point of view. If the unions don't have as much pull, they can't pull the Democrats apart, either.

Moreover, while significant differences remain in the Dems about particular policies, the desire to fight what most Dems see as the increasing extremism of the GOP dwarfs those differences.

You can point to one particular race, or a particular issue, and cherry-pick outcomes to show whatever you like. However, when you look at national numbers, the trend is pretty clear, I think.

The GOP is in some trouble, unless it starts to move back to its traditional center-right position. I'd say that, while many Democrats, and even fewer unaffiliated moderates, feel enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, they find the GOP field of candidates mostly appalling.

The best part is, we'll have a lot more information in less than 16 months. Given what we know, now, I predict it'll go this way:

Hillary probably wins the Democratic nomination. She'll select a pro-union Democrat as a running-mate, probably from California or some other populous state.

If the GOP gets rid of Trump before the end of the year, AND Trump doesn't run as an independent spoiler, AND the GOP nominates Jeb Bush or some other moderate, Clinton wins narrowly.

If the GOP gets rid of Trump, but Trump decides to run as an independent, Clinton wins big and has substantial coat-tails, no matter who the GOP nominates.

If the GOP gets rid of Trump, AND Trump quietly goes away, AND the GOP nominates a social conservative, Hillary wins slightly less big, but still wins by a larger margin than she'd beat Bush.

Trump's a clown, and he's offending huge swathes of the voting demographic, and the longer he shoots off his mouth, the more damage he'll do -- and that's because most people believe that what he says actually, truly does reflect the popular opinions of the GOP rank-and-file, and the rest of the country finds those views absolutely grotesque.

(And, having posted all that, I think I need to do my part to nip this tangent, before it goes any further. It's more of a GenChat discussion, as opposed to THS, although it does illustrate some interesting memetics, I guess.)