The "mask off" bit has been done to death at this point, but compare this guy's political credentials to a guy like Ted Cruz. If you believe that we live in a meritocracy, or if you want to have some veneer of legitimacy to support your reactionary politics, Cruz at least checks some boxes you might find important. An Ivy League education, a prestigious legal career, high-ranking government work before moving onto electoral politics, wasn't particularly old at the time of his first election (42), and he's not just some WASP-y white guy, either. He was elected on the (astroturfed and quickly co-opted) Tea Party wave, but all of the above gives away how artificial the Tea Party "movement" really was -- he's right out of the neocon mold, he just knows how to pander to people who actually believe the rhetoric, like you said.
McCloskey does not have an elite education (Southern Methodist University is expensive and nice, but it's not Harvard or Princeton), does small-firm personal injury work (lucrative, but far from prestigious), has no experience I can find working with the government, and is the definition of an old (64) white male. The only reason anyone knows him is because he got on the news for pulling a gun on BLM protesters. There's no way you can half-passively argue that he's a good candidate on his own merits. Hell, even with Trump you could say "he's a billionaire and he says it like it is and he mopped the floor with all those GOP lizards." Can you say anything like that about this guy?
This might eventually be a meaningful change, because a lot of politically active people vote for one party or the other essentially for cultural reasons -- their parents did, and voting that way was acceptable where they grew up. But maybe, at least for some, that type of cultural support is contingent on having a candidate who at least gives them one or two "positives" to hang their hat on. Cruz at least had some sort of conventional political background, and Trump at least had some level of financial success and was entertaining. But what happens when your candidate is just some random millionaire with all the charisma of your typical 60ish reactionary boomer?
But that's a "mask off" positive. You can only admit you want to do that if you're an open reactionary. My thinking is that there might be some non-trivial amount of "cultural" Republicans who are fine with all the horrible shit Republicans do so long as it isn't too blatantly about white supremacy. With Cruz (and to a lesser extent, Trump) you can find some positives that keep the façade in place. But with this type of guy?
His ass will squeeze through the Overton window just fine. The Republican machine runs so smoothly. They will tease each other in the primary, but will lockstop THE MOMENT it’s decided.
Yeah, I'm not optimistic that this will be a bump in the road, but I think there's at least a chance. More of a chance than more presentable reactionaries, at least.
The "mask off" bit has been done to death at this point, but compare this guy's political credentials to a guy like Ted Cruz. If you believe that we live in a meritocracy, or if you want to have some veneer of legitimacy to support your reactionary politics, Cruz at least checks some boxes you might find important. An Ivy League education, a prestigious legal career, high-ranking government work before moving onto electoral politics, wasn't particularly old at the time of his first election (42), and he's not just some WASP-y white guy, either. He was elected on the (astroturfed and quickly co-opted) Tea Party wave, but all of the above gives away how artificial the Tea Party "movement" really was -- he's right out of the neocon mold, he just knows how to pander to people who actually believe the rhetoric, like you said.
McCloskey does not have an elite education (Southern Methodist University is expensive and nice, but it's not Harvard or Princeton), does small-firm personal injury work (lucrative, but far from prestigious), has no experience I can find working with the government, and is the definition of an old (64) white male. The only reason anyone knows him is because he got on the news for pulling a gun on BLM protesters. There's no way you can half-passively argue that he's a good candidate on his own merits. Hell, even with Trump you could say "he's a billionaire and he says it like it is and he mopped the floor with all those GOP lizards." Can you say anything like that about this guy?
This might eventually be a meaningful change, because a lot of politically active people vote for one party or the other essentially for cultural reasons -- their parents did, and voting that way was acceptable where they grew up. But maybe, at least for some, that type of cultural support is contingent on having a candidate who at least gives them one or two "positives" to hang their hat on. Cruz at least had some sort of conventional political background, and Trump at least had some level of financial success and was entertaining. But what happens when your candidate is just some random millionaire with all the charisma of your typical 60ish reactionary boomer?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
But that's a "mask off" positive. You can only admit you want to do that if you're an open reactionary. My thinking is that there might be some non-trivial amount of "cultural" Republicans who are fine with all the horrible shit Republicans do so long as it isn't too blatantly about white supremacy. With Cruz (and to a lesser extent, Trump) you can find some positives that keep the façade in place. But with this type of guy?
His ass will squeeze through the Overton window just fine. The Republican machine runs so smoothly. They will tease each other in the primary, but will lockstop THE MOMENT it’s decided.
Yeah, I'm not optimistic that this will be a bump in the road, but I think there's at least a chance. More of a chance than more presentable reactionaries, at least.