In a column in today’s NYT, Nate Cohn divides GOP voters into six groups: “Traditional Conservatives;” “Libertarian Conservatives;” “Right Wing;” “Newcomers;” “Moderate Establishment;” and “Blue Collar Populists.” How do Cohn’s categories correspond to the “four factions” (i.e., different ideological threads) often discussed in this blog?
Very nicely, thank you. Cohn’s “Libertarian Conservatives” are identical, even in name, to my “Conservative Libertarians.” His “Moderate Establishment” is ideologically similar to my Christian Democrat faction; the difference in names is due to the fact that I am discussing an ideology with world-wide application, and he is defining a group of Americans. “Newcomers” is not a coherent ideology, and can be ignored. “Traditional Conservatives” is another name for my Pro-Business Pragmatist faction, although Cohn insists these people have conservative views on cultural issues, while I would argue that they are relatively indifferent to them. Cohn, however, takes my Reactionary category and breaks it down into “Right Wing” and “Blue Collar Populists.” Is he right about that? Should my category boundaries be changed to reflect his thinking?
I have previously divided my Reactionaries group into “secular” and “religious” Reactionaries. I have additionally argued that the former subgroup can be further split into “racial” and “economic” Reactionaries. Cohn’s “Blue Collar Populists” clearly include both subgroups; his “Right Wing” is identical to my “religious” Reactionaries.
Put another way, the “Right Wing” voted for Ted Cruz in the 2016 primaries, while the “Blue Collar Populists” voted for Trump. Both groups support Trump today, because they agree that Trump is the only man with the guts and the willingness to use the power of the state to crush the corrupt liberal establishment and return America to its former greatness. That means both groups are reactionary, even if they have somewhat different priorities and grievances. I consequently stand by my classification boundaries; Cohn’s analysis is correct, but splitting the two groups improperly emphasizes their differences over their more fundamental similarities.