Are we acting like Donald Trump hasn't won three straight primaries and a Bush didn't just embarrassingly drop out of the race? I think Ron Paul's popularity signaled the demise of the traditional GOP, empowered the Tea Party, and led to the viability of Cruz and Trump to take over the party. Am I way off here? I don't have much political memory of Newt's Contract on America, so maybe this is cyclical and I don't realize it.
Part of it's cyclical, in that the GOP seems to freak out when a Democrat is president. Clinton was a moderate, southern, DLC good ol' boy, and they reacted by shutting down the government and then impeaching him after he was re-elected.
It feels like the GOP has lost control of its base somewhat, with the various Tea Party challengers, the problems getting a new Speaker, and various presidential candidacies/book tours getting more support than they ought to. Years of being told their politicians are basically traitors will do that, as multiple attempts to pass an immigration compromise the base
really doesn't want. Still, the Tea Party primary challenges mostly died out, and all evidence is that Trump appeals just as much to GOP "moderates," so even that may be overblown.
Like I said earlier, I think the tone's a bit different at this moment (especially if you consider Trump as the current spokesperson) but the general content? It's still about lower taxes, a government that doesn't interfere with business, a belligerent foreign policy, reduced or privatized social services, and the primacy of traditional white, Christian culture. The coalition is mostly the same (though even more racially polarized now), the general cultural allegiances and resentments are mostly the same, and the thrust of the policies will be mostly the same.
