The Republican Party Doesn’t Exist Anymore

The Republican Party Doesn’t Exist Anymore

How Fox News consumed the GOP.


The past few years have brought forth some startling revelations about politics in America: how power hungry our leaders can be, how far white nationalism can take a person in politics, and that the Republican Party doesn't exist anymore. Yes, you read that right; the actions of the last few years have caused me to realize that one of the two major American parties has faded away without our noticing. Now, how exactly does a political party with over 32 million members and countless millions more sympathizers vanish without anyone noticing? The answer to this is actually quite simple, Fox News.

It has been an age old problem for political parties of any stripe as to how to inform supporters and whip up partisan fervor and to this end most have at one time or another created various party news organs to educate and inform. These have ranged from the hyper-partisan editorials that dominated the early political life of the American republic to the infamous State news organizations of one-party dictatorships. Fox News would seem to be another in a line of partisan news sites towing the party line, but looks can be deceiving.

To understand how Fox News is different from its news brethren, we need to start back at the beginning. Fox News was a product of the Nixon White House, only a place so warped in paranoia and political backstabbing could dream something as noxious as a propaganda outfit masquerading as a news organization. It premiered in the mid-90's and quickly enmeshed itself in conservative politics becoming the chief cheerleader of the Bush presidency and arch critic of the Obama administration in body and soul. Fox News has seen its greatest height, however, most recently with the presidency of Donald Trump who is an avid fan of the network, watching it almost religiously every day, and hiring several of its former executives as advisors.

When Fox arrived on the scene, conservatives were all too happy to welcome it into their lives with open arms, glad to finally have a leg up on the dastardly liberals opposing them. They never really questioned it as Fox talking points began to creep into their platforms, and their voters and the Fox viewership began to resemble each other more and more. The closest analogy for what has been taking place in the GOP that I can think of is one of those funguses that takes over the body of an insect and begins pupating it long after it has died. Fox grew for years within the GOP gathering strength and gaining influence until it burst forth in 2016 to take control and push its agenda through. Fox News is no longer the news wing of a political party; it is now a news organization with a political wing. Perhaps the most compelling evidence of this takeover is that all the think tanks, policy advisors, congressmen, and senators in the employ of the GOP have less influence than an episode of Fox and Friends upon our president.

So is there a chance then that the GOP as we knew it could ever return, the short term answer is no. Fox has an iron grip over the Republican base and with the death of Senator McCain I fear that no other major Republican politician has the courage to stand up to the darker impulses of the base. In the longer view it is harder to say, Fox News is ascendant right now, but they have hitched themselves to a demographically sinking ship, an older and whiter base of cable TV watchers. In the coming decades this group is going to make it difficult to sustain a lucrative TV network, let alone a political movement. It is not unthinkable that after a few cycles of being beaten at the polls and some demographic turnover, the GOP may be able to reform itself into a viable political party again. For the meantime though, we are stuck in a world in which one of the major political parties has been hijacked by a TV network, and major policy decisions are decided by sound bite. God help us all.

Popular Right Now

As A Victim Of Sexual Abuse, Painting '#MeToo' On A WWII Statue Is Taking The Movement TOO Far

There is a line you should never cross and that is it.


The famous picture of the sailor kissing a woman was taken right on V-J Day, when Japan surrendered to the U.S. in World War II. For decades it was seen as a representation of how excited and relieved everyone was at the end of the war.

The picture touched the hearts of thousands as you could feel the overwhelming amounts of joy that came from the snap of the camera. While the woman in the picture died back in 2016 due to a struggle with pneumonia, the sailor just recently died on Feb. 17, 2019 at the age of 95.

Most people saw it as both a heartbreak and heartwarming that the couple that was once photographed were now together.

Other people saw differently.

There is a statue made of the picture that resides in Sarasota, Florida. Police found early Tuesday morning of Feb. 19, two days after the sailor's death, that someone had spray-painted #MeToo on the statue's leg in bright red.

As a woman, I strongly encourage those who have been sexually assaulted/abused in any way shape or form, to voice themselves in the best way they can. To have the opportunity to voice what they went through without being afraid. As a woman who has also been a victim of sexual assault and has been quiet for many years...

This act of vandalism makes me sick.

While the woman that was kissed by the sailor was purely kissed on impulse, she had stated in an interview with 'The New York Times' that, "It wasn't a romantic event. It was just an event of 'thank God the war is over.'"

People were celebrating and, as a sailor, that man was so over the moon about the war being over that he found the nearest woman to celebrate with.

While I don't condone that situation, I understand both the reason behind it as well as the meaning behind the photo. I understand that, while it wasn't an intended kiss, it was a way of showcasing relief. To stick #MeToo on a statue of a representation of freedom is not the right way to bring awareness of sexual abuse.

It gives those the wrong idea of why the #MeToo movement was started. It started as a way for victims of sexual abuse to share their stories. To share with the world that they are not alone.

It helped me realize I wasn't alone.

But the movement, soon after it started, became a fad that turned wrong. People were using it in the wrong context and started using it negatively instead of as an outlet for women and men to share their horrific experiences of sexual assault.

That statue has been up for years. To wait until the sailor passed away was not only rude but entirely disrespectful. The family of that sailor is currently in mourning. On top of it, it's taking away from the meaning behind the photo/statue. World War II was one of the darkest, scariest events in — not just our American history — but the world's as well.

Sexual abuse is a touchy matter, I encourage everyone to stand up for what's right. But to vandalize a statue of one of the most relieving days in America's history is an act that was unnecessary and doesn't get the point of #MeToo across in the way it should. If anything, it's giving people a reason not to listen. To protest and bring attention to something, you want to gather the right attention.

This was not gathering the right attention.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Trump Hasn't Nicknamed Pelosi or AOC. What's The Deal?

These two women aren't receiving the usual treatment and it begs the question: why?


Our Commander in Chief has been known to give out derogatory nicknames to those in the capital that he doesn't like very much. EG: "Pocahontas" for Elizabeth Warren, "Crooked" Hillary. I mean, for goodness sake's, there's a Wikipedia article with a comprehensive list of Trump's mean nicknames and who they belong to.

While Wikipedia does include names used on Nancy Pelosi, all of the nicknames still include her own name, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't even make the list. While the internet has adoringly dubbed her AOC, Trump himself hasn't felt the urge to demean her with a nickname.

So, what gives? Why do Pelosi and AOC get spared the derogatory nickname?

(Also, remember that in no way is this normal.)

I may be making a giant assumption, but it seems to be, that Trump's nicknames are meant to demean and belittle the receivers of them. So, by giving both Bernie and Hillary nicknames during the course of the election, he associated them with those traits and demeaned them in the public eye.

Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren't people that Trump can easily belittle. The reasons for why are varied and speculative, but it seems that Trump has found these to be more difficult to harass in front of the public. It could be because of mass public support for them, but Bernie Sanders and Hilary were both moderately popular in the eyes of the media and general citizenship.

In my mind, that narrows it down to two things. Either Trump does not view Pelosi or AOC as threats, or... he is afraid to nickname them.

It seems insane that Trump would not view the two as a threat, given their very public statements regarding his policies. Pelosi and Cortez are threats, but big enough ones that Trump is afraid of their retaliation in the political scheme, and therefore, it's too dangerous to give them nicknames.

But now we can see through him. If he can't demean these two strong women for his own political gain, what can he do?

Related Content

Facebook Comments