There is Not, and Was Not, a Moderate Republican Establishment

This is a really interesting read about the intellectual breakdown of the Republican Party from a de-regulatory, pro-business 1920s political party, to today's mess. Just read this part though:

FDR’s continued popularity made many Republicans recognize that the party would die if it did not bow to the reality that Americans wanted activist government of some kind. One branch of the party, led by New York governor Thomas E. Dewey, accepted that reality, although its members wanted more freedom for business. But a reactionary faction, led by Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft, insisted that the New Deal was un-American. The Republicans must not, they said, become a “Me-Too” party. When WWII ended, Taft’s faction joined with wealthy southern Democrats who hated the New Deal’s civil rights policies to try to roll back FDR’s legacy.

This split between the Taft Republicans and the moderates became a war when moderates from New York and New England helped General Dwight D. Eisenhower win the 1952 Republican nomination. The convention included fistfights. Taft loyalists insisted that the nomination rightly belonged to Senator Taft, and they never forgave Eisenhower for stealing it. They condemned the “Eastern Establishment” that had secured Eisenhower’s nomination. Those people were apostates, polluting the pro-business principles of the true Republican Party.

When Eisenhower developed his own version of the New Deal, Taft Republicans exploded. Eisenhower based what he called the Middle Way on the idea that “if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government.” Although he trimmed business regulation, he kept the upper income tax bracket at 91% and backed a national healthcare system (although he could not get it through Congress). He also supported the largest public works program in American history: the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act constructed 41,000 miles of interstate highways. The economy boomed in the Eisenhower years, and Americans liked Ike and loved the Middle Way.

Now, obviously Senator Taft and Senator Cruz have a lot in common, but get past that for a moment. Name me the national Republican who was willing to adopt any of the Eisenhower-wing's policies? There isn't one. This is the fascinating part of the Republican split though in 2016- there is just movement conservatives, more extreme movement conservatives, and Trump. The only thing kind of "different" is Trump, because he's embracing white nationalism in such an overt way. I stress the word "overtly" though, because racism isn't new in the GOP:

Movement Conservatives fought to take control of the party from moderate Republicans. Movement Conservatives stood firmly against taxes and government activism, but they built their power by adding racism to their anti-government crusade. They argued that tax dollars redistributed wealth from hardworking white people to undeserving people of color and women. This argument proved a winner when Movement Conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater’s only five states in 1964–aside from his home state—were in the Deep South. In 1968, Nixon captured Goldwater voters by adopting the Southern Strategy to assure white southerners that the days of federal enforcement of civil rights were ending. In 1980, Reagan began his general election campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been murdered during Freedom Summer, and told the crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.” The message was unmistakable. He also used the image of the “Welfare Queen,” a black woman who stole tax dollars by making fraudulent welfare claims, in winning the presidency.

Let's be clear here- no Republican is embracing government activism, possible taxes, or diversity in their program. There is no "moderate" Republican in national politics. Even the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan ticket embraced the language of "makers and takers," a more subdued version of conservative rhetoric. Don't give them the benefit of splitting the Republicans off into camps- it's not like Rubio is substantially different than Cruz on policy. It's not like either isn't similar to Trump on world view.