|
The "Old Right" wing of the GOP consisted of people including Everett Dirksen, Leslie Arends, and
Joseph McCarthy. They were marked by fierce anti-Communism, opposition to federal initiatives, support for school prayer, and support for fiscal conservatism. Some were isolationists, with people like Kenneth Wherry, while others were internationalists (known to modern conservative wingnuts as eViL gLobAliSts!!!!!!111!!!SHIFT1!!SHIFToneeleventyone11!!!1!), including Bourke Hickenlooper.
What would be their perception of the utter chaos marked by current United States politics if the presumption is that they can get a glimpse of the current situations? A guide to thoroughly analyzing this rests on examining the GOP rifts from the era. The modern-day "Never Trumpers" claim that the ideology of "Trumpism" is remote from the principles of the early party foundation. Perhaps McCain acolyte Steve Schmidt is the reincarnation of George Aiken! The latter claimed in 1938 that Lincoln would've been "ashamed" of the national party then. So these lines currently used by the anti-Trump crowd are nothing new.
Now, would the Old Right Republicans view the modern-day GOP as too conservative? Likely yes and no. Recall that school prayer was a thing in U.S. public schools prior to Engel v. Vitale. After the SCOTUS ruling, Dirksen proposed a constitutional amendment to allow school prayer, which went down a heavy defeat in the Senate. The analysis by party is most certainly noteworthy: the Democrats were split, while nearly all the Republicans were in favor. When I say nearly all the Republicans, I mean that even most of the RINOs moderates like Margaret Chase Smith and Hugh Scott voted for it. Does the current Republican Party advocate a return to public school prayer? I have no recollection of someone like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, let alone a moderate liberal Republican (namely Susan Collins, essentially a protégé of Margaret Chase Smith) making this a strong issue in the current national politics. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- """""Conservatives.""""" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your point? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- That you're politically illiterate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- No further specification/elaboration? Ah well, what is there to expect of you in discussions at this point... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, your arguments don't deserve any sort of respect from anyone. --It's-a me,
 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why is that? Because my assertions are just too factual? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Calling your analyses "factual" doesn't make them so, genius. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can you thoroughly and specifically debunk my statements while only addressing hard facts and not spout absurd/irrelevant/ad hominem gobbledygook? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- You unironically cited PragerU!!!! You view Dinesh D'Souza with respect! I don't know where you get this information, but if you cannot seem to understand why I look down on those two beyond "oh she's liberal she has to hate things that disagree with her", I'm not gonna play your stupid game. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- And he wondered why I deleted his attention whoring garbage. Debates should only be held in good faith. This "debate" is very much based in bad faith and attention whoring. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- [EC] So LeftyGreenMario, all you self-admittedly have are ad hominem attacks, not fact-based refutations. 'Nuff said. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
|
