In my view, Tom is advocating trying to weaken the current GOP by pointing out the ideological fissures and gross changes of substantive position that have accompanied the takeover of the GOP by tribalism and a reality denying political-cultist mindset. That can be done without hagiography or lessening the critique of the current GOP by pointing out that 1)the GOP has changed, in many significant ways, including in particular ideology, and 2)elements of the GOP used to have a meaningful ideology that actually had at least some intellectual coherence. even if we as liberals disagree with that ideology.
Basically, pointing out the weaknesses within the GOP that have been papered over by outrage.
In that regard, I think the terminology to use to refer to the older era of GOP conservatism is “Burkean Conservatism” - even though that was rarely dominant in the pre-Nixon GOP, it was a fairly substantial element of the GOP for some decades prior to Nixon.
(Yes, yes, I know please insert “No True Burkean” jokes here.)
I do think as one element of responding to the modern GOP, pointing out that there was a more sane version of conservatism from which the modern GOP has strayed (which does not require endorsing or proselytizing such Burkean Conservatism), is a viable and helpful strategy, along with a full throated denunciation of the many ills of the current GOP. It doesn’t have to be one or the other: a viable counter-strategy is to critique the modern GOP’s many failings and point out that even if folks are not liberals, there are options to being a “Republican/Conservative”.
This gets at a very interesting other issue: how to target a political argument. I understand in the current climate many folks are all about fighting for every inch, scorching every acre of ground, etc. I do understand that fury and desperation. But my personal view is that targeted aggression is FAR more effective than full frontal intensity b/c the full frontal becomes diffused and entangled with the idiocy and emotion of the other side’s arguments. Targeted aggression is, in my view, actually a more aggressive approach, in practice. Narrow attacks that strike very deep into the opposition’s weak points are my preferred approach.
This is why I tend to focus on specific things: the big GOP horror show issues, the extreme malfactors like Trump and McConnell, etc. I honestly don’t give much of a fig about say Kasich or Mattis. I’m not going to praise either, but I’m not going to waste any time attacking them unless there is a specific reason. There are far better targets.
