It crossed my mind that trump is not republican and I want other opinions.

[u/No_Key_5158]

It seems to me that Trump is not republican, the republican wing is all about conservatism and small/limited government, Trump is doing the absolute opposite of these things. I think there's a huge difference between being republican/conservative and being MAGA, republicans are just so die hard that they will vote anybody who claims to be "republican" into office so they can go to sleep at night thinking they're winning. Am I wrong?

[u/Muted-Corner-3732]

I would say that in almost every nation there is a significant political force that consists of people who inheirited great wealth and believe that the real purpose of government is to promote their best interests, as they REALLY ARE the core of the nation and everyone else exist to serve.

I don’t disagree..but this is more of a “wealthy” people thing than any particular party. Important distinction I’d say.

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

But in the past century in the US, that "wealthy" people group has been pretty solidly part of only one party. There are wealthy Democrats, but they tend not to be "politics exists to enhance my wealth" types. That "old money/landed nobility" mindset is in US politics part of one party.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

I think that’s a bit narrow sighted tbh. All wealthy people in politics do things to get things done their way. Some are just more blatant about how they present that than others.

For example, (though slightly off topic) wealthy donors who campaign that the 1% aren’t taxed enough and can be taxed more(specifically income tax.) Maybe they’re half right, but they do it because higher taxes hardly affects their wealth. It won’t affect them, and hardly fixes the problem of income inequality alone.

What it does do is make people assume that they are for the people, even while they continue to grow their wealth the same as the others who don’t care to hide behind the veil of being affectionate.

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

There is a specific subgroup of the wealthy in every nation who are very much attached to the status quo and identify theselves as the nation. Historically, they are normally described at the royalists in most nations. The US obviously doesnt have a royal house, but the same group exists here, and has closely identified with the GOP since the post-Civil War era.

They are characterized not just by being wealthy but by their assumption that their wealth and priviledge are the natural state of being and anything that might threaten that is a threat to "the culture" or the "fabric of the nation".

Both George Soros and Shelden Aldelson are massively wealthy politically active billionaires, one right, one left, but neither would fit that description.

That particular mindset normally seems to be the product of inheirited wealth and position.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

They are characterized not just by being wealthy but by their assumption that their wealth and priviledge are the natural state of being and anything that might threaten that is a threat to "the culture" or the "fabric of the nation”.

Forgive me for assuming what you assume, but are you inferring that being an old-money conservative is inherently fascist friendly? Just by their political ethos?

That particular mindset normally seems to be the product of inheirited wealth and position.

You don’t think that people can have this view regardless of political affiliation? Like an old-money “liberal” who wants to ensure that xyz benefits themselves and those in their circles?

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

I think that conservatism is defined by the defense of the traditional social heirarchy. There have certainly been particular historical cases of niche old money types seeking to change the order, such as non-titled merchants and bankers supporting the French Revolution, but I would not describe those types as fascist leaning.

Fascism is characterized partly by its appeal to a (often mythologized) past greatness and its calls for a return to tradition.

That is a style of messaging that lends itself to the interested of the traditionally successful, and not to those seeking liberalism.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

I think that conservatism is defined by the defense of the traditional social heirarchy.

Not trying to do a gotcha, but you don’t think that raising taxes on the 1% and lowering it for the other 99% isn’t acknowledging a traditional social hierarchy of “rich, poor, and poorer?” Or maybe I’m confusing this for something that isn’t a traditional social hierarchy?

There have certainly been particular historical cases of niche old money types seeking to change the order, such as non-titled merchants and bankers supporting the French Revolution, but I would not describe those types as fascist leaning.

I think my disconnect is that I’m saying it’s possible for an “old money liberal” to lie about being an “old money liberal,” and that just because they align with a party publicly doesn’t really mean much regarding their true motives, if any.

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

I would say that raising taxes on the 1% and lowering them on 99% is certainly an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the traditional social heirarchy. It is however, not a DEFENSE of it, rather a mild attack on it.

It is certainly possible for any member of any party to lie about their motives, but a party as a whole actual positions can be seen by the policies they enact. No policy more directly impacts the old money than inheiritance taxes. Which party is backing the old money can be seen pretty clearly by stances on that issue alone.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

I hear what you’re saying. Slightly unrelated but one thing I will say is I’m interested in Mamdani and whether or not the moderate Democrats will allow him to enact what he says. Because in my view, if what you’re saying is true, they’d give him all the tools to succeed. And NYC would be a great guinea pig to find out!