Link. In part -
Under Dwight Eisenhower the tax rate on the highest-income Americans was 91% and roughly a third of American workers were unionized.
And Republicans largely accepted that state of affairs. In a letter to his brother, Eisenhower wrote, “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again”; while there were a few conservatives who thought differently, “their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
Beginning in the 1970s, however, the Republican Party increasingly came to be dominated by people who did want to roll back the New Deal legacy.[...] Why didn’t Republicans pay a big political price for their hard right turn? Largely because they were able to offset the unpopularity of their economic policies by harnessing the forces of religious conservatism and social illiberalism — hostility toward nonwhite Americans, LGBTQ Americans, immigrants and more. [...]
But eventually the forces that economic conservatives were trying to use ended up using them. This wasn’t something that suddenly happened with the Trump nomination; people who think that the GOP suddenly changed forget how prevalent conspiracy theories and refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Democratic electoral victories already were in the 1990s. The current dominance of MAGA represents a culmination of a process that has been going on for decades.
And for the most part, Republican politicians who probably weren’t extremists themselves went along. For a while this may have been because MAGA was still delivering the right-wing economic goods. Bear in mind that despite all the talk of “populism,” Trump’s main policy achievement was a big cut in corporate taxes. But non-extremist Republicans also, and increasingly, gave in out of fear — for their careers and perhaps even their safety.
It’s to Romney’s credit that he finally reached his limit. But he did so very late in the game — a game that people like him basically started.
When the Clintons moved to embrace the Republican economic agenda in large measure, Republicans panicked. If George W.H. Bush [and running mate Willie Horton] could not keep in power, panickville touched ground.
Son Bush, worse but reelected?? What did that tell the party? Play the marginal voters they had, co-opt their Angst, and have them controlled and voting in lockstep. After all, what did the Dems offer such fringe players? They were locked in.
Soon the fringe organized and ousted those thinking they owned and ran their prols.
Q happened. MTG and LB and Gaetz happened.
Romney? Sidetracked. While he at least made no Sarah Palin miscue, who/what did he inspire (and - some may suggest Paul Ryan WAS a Sarah Palin error).
Romney simply inspired distrust of his Bain Capital take no prisoners background. Adding Paul Ryan, generously speaking toward Mitt, was - how wise, how reassuring? That he thought Ryan would help his chances was as strong an indictment of his judgment as was his schmoozing Netanyahu.
Add to that a haughtiness endemic to too many of those who grow up in privilege, what's to like about Mitt Romney unless you're a Mormon? He has all the charm and warmth of a Jarad Kushner or Rudy G. He's leaving, the mess will belong to others.