User:Edgarde/Republican establishment

The Republican establishment is the de facto leadership of the Republican party.

1930s
In the 1930s, the US Republican party was dominated by a powerful party hierarchy.

1960s
When the Republican Party does not hold the Presidency, the de facto leadership of the Republican party is considered to be the previous Republican candidate. After losing to John Kennedy in 1962, Goldwater and his supporters were considered the establishment.

This example sucks for people unfamiliar with this history. How better to illustrate this?

1980s
Subheading by year is not working well.

The mid-1900s white shoe Republican professional institutional presence disappeared as a force by the 1988 Presidential election, when George H. W. Bush reversed many of his previous positions on social and foreign policy, embracing those of social conservatism.

So clumsy. Link to White-shoe firm is synthesis at best. Also, how to handle Rockefeller Republicans?

2010s
Section could also be titled 'Practice of denouncing the "Republican establishment"'

In the post-Palin era, Republican political candidates often branded themselves as independents by denouncing the "Republican establishment".

Pinning this on Palin is weak. Is this a Tea Party thing? Would need citation.

<!--- copied from draft for "Eastern establishment"

=Eastern establishment= The Eastern establishment refers to the professional class of Ivy League educated Republicans who inhabited white shoe law firms, foreign service, intelligence, and Treasury bureaucracies in the United States during the mid-1900s. This presence was displaced by Reagan-era ideologues during the 1980s, and analysts to agree it had disappeared as an influence by the time George H. W. Bush's dignity committed suicide in 1988.

Cultural references
The Tea Party movement frequently targeted Republican incumbents whom they denounced as belonging to the Republican establishment, a dumbed-down characterization frequently invoked as a bogeyman in the 2016 elections by Republican candidates branding themselves as mavericky independents.

Like their Tea Party opposition, these incumbents uniformly professed to be of the post-Reagan orthodoxy, supporting tax cuts for the wealthy (despite a majority of voters, including a sizable minority of Republicans, favoring tax increases for the wealthy), and cutting back government services (particularly the Affordable Care Act) while increasing military spending.

January 2016 editorials in The Week and The Atlantic described the "Republican establishment" as having become a scapegoat, a body to which Republicans claim (or imagine) they do not belong that is responsible for the objectionable state of the country. --->