The shifting GOP Platform

[charminglife]

We all know that the GOP has shifted to the right, but I think this is an interesting snapshot as to when and how. The analysis of tone and word choice is interesting too.

I hope the Post does similar analysis for the democrats during their convention.

GOP platform through the years shows party’s shift from moderate to conservative
By Marc Fisher, Tuesday, August 28, 6:30 AM

The word “abortion” does not appear in a Republican Party platform until 1976, when the party concedes it is deeply split between those who believe in “abortion on demand” and those who seek to protect the lives of the unborn.

The quest for lower taxes does not define Republicanism until the 1980s, and matters of faith play almost no role in the party’s platform until the ’90s.

The Republican Party, viewed through its quadrennial platform documents, is consistently business-oriented and committed to a strong defense, but has morphed over the past half-century from a socially moderate, environmentally progressive and fiscally cautious perspective to a conservative party that is suspicious of government, allied against abortion and driven by faith.

Party platforms are not easy reading. They are the meat missing from a campaign menu dominated by sweet and sour TV commercials. Platforms are aspirational laundry lists, packed with sops to every interest group that makes up a modern party. But in retrospect, they provide a pretty good guide to where the party is heading.

What it means to be a Republican has changed enormously over the past half century. The GOP opposed a Palestinian state as late as 1992, went silent on the issue for eight years, and has endorsed the idea in its past two platforms. During the George H.W. Bush years, Republicans acknowledged global warming and boasted of efforts to commit billions in federal dollars to finding solutions. The party then spent two election cycles saying there was too much “scientific uncertainty” before finally accepting a human role in altering the planet’s climate in 2008.

Many positions Republicans often tout as traditionally conservative are actually relatively new to GOP ideology. Indeed, although the party’s stance on the issues has shifted rightward in the past 20 years, Republicans have studiously avoided using the word “conservative” in platforms.

For decades, the party presented itself as “moderate” or even “progressive.” The 1960 platform, for example, touts “progressive Republican policies” such as “liberal pay” and urges that government “must be truly progressive as an employer.”

In 1972, the platform celebrates Republicans’ use of wage and price controls to curb inflation, a doubling of federal spending on manpower training and a tripling of help to minorities.

Even the party’s most conservative platforms avoid the C word, which first appears in 1992. From the 1960s through to 2008, platforms liberally criticize “liberals,” but “conservative” is used almost exclusively to refer to judges.

From the 1960s through the ’80s, each platform reads like a snapshot of its time, capturing the frustrations of the party or the pride of those in power, sometimes wryly needling Democrats, other years slamming them hard. But from the 1990s forward, the platforms exhibit a sameness of rhetorical style, a reflection of the cut and paste reality of the computer age, in which entire sentences appear over and over in successive platforms.

Even as ritual expressions of solidarity with the Philippines or calls to abolish inheritance taxes survive each new round of platform construction, the party line has changed markedly on many issues.

For decades, Republicans emphasized federal funding for public transit. Then, in 1980, a turn: “Republicans reject the elitist notion that Americans must be forced out of their cars. Instead, we vigorously support the right of personal mobility and freedom as exemplified by the automobile....”

Throughout the 1960s and 70s, the GOP platform included vigorous support for an equal rights amendment to protect women. Then, in 1980, the party stalemates: “We acknowledge the legitimate efforts of those who support or oppose ratification....”

In the 1960s and 70s, the party positioned itself as a strong advocate for D.C. voting rights, in the Senate as well as the House. Then, in 1980, all mention of voting rights vanishes, never to appear again.

Abortion’s first appearance represents a party very much split between business-oriented moderates and religious conservatives: Abortion “is undoubtedly a moral and person issue” on which Republicans disagree, the 1976 platform says.

Four years later, the issue has been settled: the GOP seeks a constitutional amendment protecting “the right to life for unborn children.” By 1992, the platform includes a call to appoint judges who oppose abortion.

Words such as “faith” and “heritage” rarely appear until the 1980s. (In 2000, religion plays an even larger role in the platform as the party goes beyond supporting prayer in public school by seeking to allow schools to post the Ten Commandments.)

The 1960 platform calls for government workers to be given “salaries which are comparable to those offered by private employers.” In 1984, public sector workers are redubbed “bureaucrats” and “Washington’s governing elite,” which is blamed for “an epidemic of crime, a massive increase in dependency, and the slumming of our cities.” Republicans pledge a radical slash in government employees.

The watershed platform of 1980 introduces tax cuts and an increasingly critical attitude toward government. “The Republican Party declares war on government overregulation,” it says.

Antipathy toward high taxes strengthens, resulting in 1992 in an explanation of how lower taxes on the wealthy would lead to job creation, and a simple declaration: “We will oppose any attempt to increase taxes.”

The platforms of 1980 and 1992 are the party’s big pivots, both in positions and rhetoric. But the roots of today’s Republicanism become clear during the 1964 conservative uprising that led to Barry Goldwater’s nomination.

In 1960, Republicans give “firm support” to “the union shop and other forms of union security” and say “Republican conscience and Republican policy require that the annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled.” Four years later, the GOP bashes Democrats for being “federal extremists” wedded to an ever-more intrusive central government. (Calls to limit benefits for illegal aliens and deny citizenship to U.S.- born children whose parents arrived here illegally enter the platform in 1996.)

The optimism of 1960, brimming with hope about new nations, weapons and ideas, gives way four years later to worry about “moral decline and drift” born of “indifference to national ideals rounded in devoutly held religious faith.”

Suddenly, faith is at the core of Republicanism: The 1960 platform says nothing about religion; four years later, “faith” is one of the most frequently used words, along with “heritage” and “freedom.”

In 1960, the platform calls for “vigorous support of court orders for school desegregation” and affirms the rights of civil rights protesters. The 1964 platform calls for “discouraging lawlessness and violence” and “opposing federally-sponsored ‘inverse discrimination.’”

The shift in substance comes with a notable pivot in tone. From the 1960 platform: “We have no wish to exaggerate differences between ourselves and the Democratic Party.” Four years later: “Let the Democratic Party stand accused.”

On foreign policy, the Republicans remained mostly consistent, calling for increased defense spending to combat Communism. But the 1964 platform foreshadows the skepticism about the United Nations that would become a GOP mainstay from the 1990s forward. In 1960, the party pledges to “support and strengthen the UN;” four years later, it warns that “Republicans will never surrender to any international group the responsibility of the United States for its sovereignty....”

If the fiery rhetoric of 1964 presaged the Reagan and Tea Party revolutions, the path was not a smooth one. The Nixon years brought a return — in the platform, if not in the coarser approach revealed in the Nixon White House tapes — of a more moderate message.

The ’68 platform would strike many voters today as a Democratic agenda — addressing air and water pollution, crowded slums, and discrimination against minorities, all with “a new mix of private responsibility and public participation in the solution of social problems.”

The 1968 platform also proposes to expand Social Security by lowering the age for universal coverage from 72 to 65. Future platforms remain supportive of maintaining Social Security benefits until 2004, when the party endorses George W. Bush’s proposal to shift to personal retirement accounts.

But amid that progressive Republicanism, the roots of the culture wars to come poke through the soil. The ‘72 platform opposes quotas to achieve racial balance in college admissions and hiring, and rails against liberal hegemony on campuses. (That theme remains through 2008, when the platform says “leftist dogmatism dominates many institutions.”)

By 1992, “family values” become a major theme, stating that “the media, the entertainment industry, academia, and the Democrat Party are waging a guerrilla war against American values.” (That abbreviated version of the other party’s name, without the “-ic” suffix, appears for the first time in 1976, an early sign of the sniping that has come to dominate inter-party rhetoric.)

The ‘92 platform, the first to mention same-sex relationships, rejects any recognition of gay marriages or allowing same-sex couples to adopt children or be foster parents. The stand on adoption and foster care does not reappear.

The passage about marriage grows longer and more strident every four years, culminating in the 2004 call, echoed in 2008, for an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. From 1996 through 2008, Republicans repeat that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”

The party also evolved on campaign finance. In 1992, the GOP calls for reforms including elimination of “political action committees supported by corporations, unions or trade associations.” By 2000, that position morphs into one championing “the right of every individual and all groups to express their opinions and advocate their issues” — a veiled reference to efforts to eliminate limits on campaign contributions.

And the party’s attitude on the balance between civil liberties and aggressive security measures shifted dramatically after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The 1996 and 2000 platforms oppose President Bill Clinton’s decision to close Pennsylvania Avenue NW in front of the White House, promising to reopen the street. But later platforms embrace George W. Bush’s emphasis on vigorous expansion of the government role in homeland security.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html

[ladybrettashley]

The GOP of 1960 is a party I could really support!

[lys]

JFK was a democrat, but would fit right in with the Republicans of today as the Democrats have moved so far left.

[wawa]

Aug 28, 2012 11:41:01 GMT -5 lys said:

JFK was a democrat, but would fit right in with the Republicans of today as the Democrats have moved so far left.

based on what policy stances?

[mominatrix]

Aug 28, 2012 11:41:01 GMT -5 lys said:

JFK was a democrat, but would fit right in with the Republicans of today as the Democrats have moved so far left.

[msmerymac]

Aug 28, 2012 11:41:01 GMT -5 lys said:

JFK was a democrat, but would fit right in with the Republicans of today as the Democrats have moved so far left.

Lol. I wish.

I wish we had a party with the balls to pass something as sweeping as the Great Society reforms of the 1960s. Or the Voting Rights Act.

[heyjude]

Aug 28, 2012 11:41:01 GMT -5 lys said:

JFK was a democrat, but would fit right in with the Republicans of today as the Democrats have moved so far left.

Never change.

[MrsDL]

Aug 28, 2012 11:47:39 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 28, 2012 11:41:01 GMT -5 lys said:

JFK was a democrat, but would fit right in with the Republicans of today as the Democrats have moved so far left.

based on what policy stances?

Taxes for one - JFK believed in lowering the tax rates for everyone - including all those 1% rich bastards.

[ttt]

Aug 28, 2012 12:23:56 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Aug 28, 2012 11:47:39 GMT -5 wawa said:

based on what policy stances?

Taxes for one - JFK believed in lowering the tax rates for everyone - including all those 1% rich bastards.

This is true insofar as he wanted the top tax rate lowered from 90% to 71%. I would hardly call that something the Republicans would be in favor of.

[MrsDL]

Aug 28, 2012 17:10:10 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 28, 2012 12:23:56 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Taxes for one - JFK believed in lowering the tax rates for everyone - including all those 1% rich bastards.

This is true insofar as he wanted the top tax rate lowered from 90% to 71%. I would hardly call that something the Republicans would be in favor of.

It's all relative to the time period. JFK enacted the biggest tax cut in history at that point, nearly 1.9% the national economy. He actually was also very pro-nuclear defense, pro national defense (if you read his speeches). He was all about free trade (which would not have then or now benefit ted US unions). As the saying goes, the Democratic party left JFK, JFK did not leave the democratic party. He was also, of course, "deeply religious" in terms of his catholic faith (which marries with all the hypocrite catholics we might have today - but still.................)

[wawa]

Aug 28, 2012 19:30:59 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Aug 28, 2012 17:10:10 GMT -5 ttt said:

This is true insofar as he wanted the top tax rate lowered from 90% to 71%. I would hardly call that something the Republicans would be in favor of.

It's all relative to the time period. JFK enacted the biggest tax cut in history at that point, nearly 1.9% the national economy. He actually was also very pro-nuclear defense, pro national defense (if you read his speeches). He was all about free trade (which would not have then or now benefit ted US unions). As the saying goes, the Democratic party left JFK, JFK did not leave the democratic party. He was also, of course, "deeply religious" in terms of his catholic faith (which marries with all the hypocrite catholics we might have today - but still.................)

Interesting.

I guess I shouldn't be so wiling to admit how ignorant I am about the stances of past presidents, huh? Please nobody revoke my CEP card!

[dev22]

Both parties have shifted a lot over the years - if they hadn't, we would be up shits creek. I just believe the Reps have gone way more right over the last 15-20 years, where as the Dems have not changed so drastically in that same time period. KWIM? I personally think the change in the GOP is shitty, but I am sure that there are plenty that feel the opposite, and think the Dems have become way to left (I think the Dems have gone to right lol).

[MrsDL]

Aug 28, 2012 19:40:11 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:30:59 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

It's all relative to the time period. JFK enacted the biggest tax cut in history at that point, nearly 1.9% the national economy. He actually was also very pro-nuclear defense, pro national defense (if you read his speeches). He was all about free trade (which would not have then or now benefit ted US unions). As the saying goes, the Democratic party left JFK, JFK did not leave the democratic party. He was also, of course, "deeply religious" in terms of his catholic faith (which marries with all the hypocrite catholics we might have today - but still.................)

Interesting.

I guess I shouldn't be so wiling to admit how ignorant I am about the stances of past presidents, huh? Please nobody revoke my CEP card!

Dude - how the hell are you not sleeping right now? Baby wawa has much energy. At this point I think I was in bed by 8:00 pm if possible ; )

[ttt]

I just don't think that JFK was as big on tax cuts as you might think:

www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.
....

But if ever advocating a tax cut makes someone a supply-sider, then JFK joins the ranks of other conservative economists like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (the tax cuts in the stimulus package, for example, were arguably the largest in history). The key distinction is that JFK and his successors saw tax cuts as one of many available economic tools. Indeed Kennedy, like Obama, favored both tax cuts and spending increases to stimulate the economy. He moved first on tax cuts because he didn't think increased spending was initially politically viable, but it remained a large part of his agenda for 1964. "First we'll have your tax cut," he told chief economic adviser Walter Heller, 11 days before his assassination, "then we'll have my expenditures program."

Kennedy's economic philosophy was less about means—tax cuts versus spending increases—than ends. As he put it in his first address as president: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

[ttt]

Aug 28, 2012 19:43:23 GMT -5 dev22 said:

Both parties have shifted a lot over the years - if they hadn't, we would be up shits creek. I just believe the Reps have gone way more right over the last 15-20 years, where as the Dems have not changed so drastically in that same time period. KWIM? I personally think the change in the GOP is shitty, but I am sure that there are plenty that feel the opposite, and think the Dems have become way to left (I think the Dems have gone to right lol).

Who thinks that the Dems have become way too left, though? I mean, besides lys who we all know is pulling things out of the air with absolutely nothing to support it.

[wawa]

Aug 28, 2012 19:44:08 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:40:11 GMT -5 wawa said:

Interesting.

I guess I shouldn't be so wiling to admit how ignorant I am about the stances of past presidents, huh? Please nobody revoke my CEP card!

Dude - how the hell are you not sleeping right now? Baby wawa has much energy. At this point I think I was in bed by 8:00 pm if possible ; )

2 weeks ago I would have been. Ever since I started rounding the corner out of 1st tri I'm like a new woman. I'm actually at the office right now waiting on simulations to run. Yay work.

[dev22]

Aug 28, 2012 19:46:03 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:43:23 GMT -5 dev22 said:

Both parties have shifted a lot over the years - if they hadn't, we would be up shits creek. I just believe the Reps have gone way more right over the last 15-20 years, where as the Dems have not changed so drastically in that same time period. KWIM? I personally think the change in the GOP is shitty, but I am sure that there are plenty that feel the opposite, and think the Dems have become way to left (I think the Dems have gone to right lol).

Who thinks that the Dems have become way too left, though? I mean, besides lys who we all know is pulling things out of the air with absolutely nothing to support it.

The res to fthe people that think like her. I mean seriously, how many ZOMG Socialism!!!!11!1! signs do we see? I am not saying it is logical or correct, just that people do feel that way.

[ladybrettashley]

Aug 28, 2012 19:46:03 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:43:23 GMT -5 dev22 said:

Both parties have shifted a lot over the years - if they hadn't, we would be up shits creek. I just believe the Reps have gone way more right over the last 15-20 years, where as the Dems have not changed so drastically in that same time period. KWIM? I personally think the change in the GOP is shitty, but I am sure that there are plenty that feel the opposite, and think the Dems have become way to left (I think the Dems have gone to right lol).

Who thinks that the Dems have become way too left, though? I mean, besides lys who we all know is pulling things out of the air with absolutely nothing to support it.

www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread

She is actually correct that the Dems lean more to the left than they did in the '60s, but the Repubs have gone off the deep end.

[MrsDL]

Aug 28, 2012 19:47:17 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:44:08 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Dude - how the hell are you not sleeping right now? Baby wawa has much energy. At this point I think I was in bed by 8:00 pm if possible ; )

2 weeks ago I would have been. Ever since I started rounding the corner out of 1st tri I'm like a new woman. I'm actually at the office right now waiting on simulations to run. Yay work.

BTW - DH laughed when I asked if it was the GC's responsibility to clean-up. I saw your post. He was speaking from a commercial GC perspecitive, but we "sub" out our own work at home too. Get them to clean up or give you some $$$ lady! Drywall shit is a bitch to clean-up!

[wawa]

Aug 28, 2012 20:15:02 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:47:17 GMT -5 wawa said:

2 weeks ago I would have been. Ever since I started rounding the corner out of 1st tri I'm like a new woman. I'm actually at the office right now waiting on simulations to run. Yay work.

BTW - DH laughed when I asked if it was the GC's responsibility to clean-up. I saw your post. He was speaking from a commercial GC perspecitive, but we "sub" out our own work at home too. Get them to clean up or give you some $$$ lady! Drywall shit is a bitch to clean-up!

LOL! I sent my husband a sampling of the responses to that thread and we ended up getting into an email pissing match over it.

I think I'll be calling the drywall boss man tomorrow.

[MrsDL]

Aug 28, 2012 20:22:09 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 28, 2012 20:15:02 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

BTW - DH laughed when I asked if it was the GC's responsibility to clean-up. I saw your post. He was speaking from a commercial GC perspecitive, but we "sub" out our own work at home too. Get them to clean up or give you some $$$ lady! Drywall shit is a bitch to clean-up!

LOL! I sent my husband a sampling of the responses to that thread and we ended up getting into an email pissing match over it.

I think I'll be calling the drywall boss man tomorrow.

You should Wawa - they know better. The GC (no matter who it is) doesn't clean that crap up. They were being lazy! Get some $$ or get them to clean - use the pregnancy as a weapon - we got painters to use BM Eco-spec (which cost a lot more) when I was pg for no extra charge. If you can't have beer or wine, might as well try for some freebies if you can ; )

[mominatrix]

Aug 28, 2012 19:54:26 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:46:03 GMT -5 ttt said:

Who thinks that the Dems have become way too left, though? I mean, besides lys who we all know is pulling things out of the air with absolutely nothing to support it.

www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread

She is actually correct that the Dems lean more to the left than they did in the '60s, but the Repubs have gone off the deep end.

The country has moved to the left - both politically and socially (just look at things like acceptance of premarital sex and "out-of-wedlock" children). So, the Dems have moved with the country, while the Reps have moved in the opposite direction.

But, that's JMO.

[MrsDL]

Aug 28, 2012 20:49:49 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Aug 28, 2012 19:54:26 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread

She is actually correct that the Dems lean more to the left than they did in the '60s, but the Repubs have gone off the deep end.

The country has moved to the left - both politically and socially (just look at things like acceptance of premarital sex and "out-of-wedlock" children). So, the Dems have moved with the country, while the Reps have moved in the opposite direction.

But, that's JMO.

Why, though, do Americans still poll center right? I'll give you socially, but not politically. It doesn't make sense to me that poll after poll for nearly a decade shows an I or center-right shift, but Dems (or even Rs for that matter) keep moving futher to the right or left.

[ttt]

Aug 28, 2012 22:24:35 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Aug 28, 2012 20:49:49 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

The country has moved to the left - both politically and socially (just look at things like acceptance of premarital sex and "out-of-wedlock" children). So, the Dems have moved with the country, while the Reps have moved in the opposite direction.

But, that's JMO.

Why, though, do Americans still poll center right? I'll give you socially, but not politically. It doesn't make sense to me that poll after poll for nearly a decade shows an I or center-right shift, but Dems (or even Rs for that matter) keep moving futher to the right or left.

Are Dems moving farther left politically rather than socially though?

Actually I'm not sure what you mean by politically vs socially. Do you mean fiscally? I don't know why you would say that Dems have moved farther left fiscally than they were in the past. When was the last time the Dems proposed something as far reaching as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or any of the Depression-era programs for that matter?

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2012 19:30:59 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Aug 28, 2012 17:10:10 GMT -5 ttt said:

This is true insofar as he wanted the top tax rate lowered from 90% to 71%. I would hardly call that something the Republicans would be in favor of.

It's all relative to the time period. JFK enacted the biggest tax cut in history at that point, nearly 1.9% the national economy.

No, it's not all relative, unless you believe the correct answer to the question "what should the tax rate be" is ALWAYS "less than it is now". And that's my problem with the Republicans of today. They won't seriously engage in economic discussion without falling back to caveman platitudes of "Government bad. Cut taxes". I mean, if Reagan is such an idol, you'd think they'd want taxes to go back to those rates...

[mominatrix]

Aug 28, 2012 23:13:58 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 28, 2012 22:24:35 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Why, though, do Americans still poll center right? I'll give you socially, but not politically. It doesn't make sense to me that poll after poll for nearly a decade shows an I or center-right shift, but Dems (or even Rs for that matter) keep moving futher to the right or left.

Are Dems moving farther left politically rather than socially though?

Actually I'm not sure what you mean by politically vs socially. Do you mean fiscally? I don't know why you would say that Dems have moved farther left fiscally than they were in the past. When was the last time the Dems proposed something as far reaching as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or any of the Depression-era programs for that matter?

Thanks for this, I think you're right.

In terms of things like Abortion and Gay Marriage, Dems have moved to the Left, because the country has moved left. To a certain extent, Dems reacted to the social upheval of the 1960s by co-opting it, while (IMHO) Reps reacted to it by trying to freeze us (socially) in the Mad Men era.

But it's also the case that, in many other ways, the Democratic party hasn't moved Left, and has in fact moved to the right. You don't see big Great Society-style programs coming out of the Democratic party. You don't see legislation to help floundering Democratic institutions (like unions and public employees).

...it's one of the things that totally amazes me about the rhetoric around Obama, that he's this crazy Leninist Communist Socialist, when, in fact, a generation ago, his stuff would line up with mainstream R thought (yes, including on healthcare, like here's Nixon on healthcare: www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx).