Speaker 2
the herd was thinning, for sure. And you could see that thinning a beginning in the late fifties, a and, but for a major events via non war social revolution on a number of fronts, a that it sort of forestalled, perhaps in to some degree, a the a sort of quickening of that, because there was beneath the surface of it, a thete political anxiety around the fact democrats that controlled the house since 19 54. So you're looking, you know, at that point, as you get into the eighties, 30 plus years of one party rule of the house, that animated a a new gingridge, so much so that what newt did, and, and i found this, you know, that's very interesting, a, you know, narrative and story telling in the book about how nute sort of worked the system against against itself in many respects. And, and by the time you get to the contract for america, there had been a lot of use of extra externalities like, you know, sea spand and the media sort of bring this pressure and to pull to europe, to your first point, about these southern, a largely southern, white men who had broken away from the democratic party because of its move into civil rights a that that vote was worth getting. And part of the internal battle inside the party was around whether or not that was a vote really worth getting. And i think in the end, a lot of us kind of sit there and go, seeealth wasn't worth gettinga well,
Speaker 1
right? It depends on what your aim is. If your aim is power, then it was, you know, if your aim is at making a better country, it might be something else. In a wee. I i overlooked in my earlier answer. O, think about the autopsy of 20 12. I mean, that was not, you know, it was, that was a decade ago, but this was a time when the r and c got people together and said, we need to be going in a different direction. Because of the demographics, know that we're still, that are still staring at us to day. Need to reach out to black americans, to latinos, asian americans, gay americans a, because otherwise you will not be able to command a majority over the long termd, i think what even before trump came into the picture, you had the house republicans, after that, basically killing off a comprehensive immigration reform ad and that was the same impulse that i think gave rise to trump. And while it is true, i mean, you know, the way latin voters in the long run wind up voting is still something of an open questiona, but it is true, at least in the short term, that even if demographics are working against republicans, you can, if you stoke up enough fears among white voters, particularly non college educated white men, a, they will turn out to vote in extraodinary number. So they will punch above their weight, in a way. And that's really the success of trump. And and what's allowing republicans to defy gravity, i think, in some extent, as if you frighten people, they think they're losing their country, they're targeted, you know, the great replacement a, the idea they'll be so frightened that they'll turn out to vote in great numbers. So it's not actually wrong as a matter of ina short term politics, you know, is a way drive out a lot of vote, a lot of voters. Now, i would argue, and i think youagree, its most definitely wrong in terms of the morality of politics. And i think it's also a bad idea politically, in the long run, but we're not in the long run, were not.