He writes,

The economic and fiscal thinking of the Tea Party movement had much in common with that of traditional American conservatism, and with theorists such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. It had much less in common with the economic and fiscal thinking of reinvented conservatism, and with theorists such as Friedman and the monetarists. Indeed, the thinking of the Tea Party movement was largely the same as that of the libertarian movement, which had long been a marginal element within the Republican Party.

…American conservatism is now split between two tendencies: (1) a partially-discredited reinvented conservatism, which nevertheless continues to dominate the leadership or “establishment” of the Republican Party because it corresponds to the economic interests of the party’s elites and big donors, and (2) a partially-revived traditional conservatism, which is a significant insurgent force within the Republican Party, because it corresponds to the economic interests of much of the party’s base and many of its core voters.

It is a long essay, which I recommend reading even though I disagree with a fair amount of it. Some thoughts:

1. What is the plural of post mortem? It seems to me that we have seen a lot of them after the election. I had a traumatic experience after 2008, in which I made the case that the U.S. was going to turn into a one-party state. Bryan Caplan challenged me to a bet, which I lost when the Republicans won the House in the 2010 mid-terms. Still, I may have been correct, at least in terms of national politics. But it is interesting that so many states are in Republican hands.

2. Kurth’s history of conservatism has traditional conservatives favoring free markets, while what he calls “reinvented conservatism” comes across as cronyism. He associates “reinvented conservatism” with Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan, which I am sure will annoy fans of those two icons.

3. As those of you have read Not What They Had in Mind know, I disagree with Kurth’s narrative in which banks fought for and achieved deregulation, leading to the financial crisis. First, this ignores the role played by housing policy and capital regulations. Second, it ignores the views of regulators, who did not think that they were loosening up the reins but thought that they were in fact exercising better control and fostering an environment of reduced risk-taking by banks. There is a huge hindsight bias in claiming that the regulators were intentionally easing up.

4. Kurth summarizes the current state of affairs as follows:

The core voting groups for the progressive coalition and the Democratic Party are (1) blacks, (2) Hispanics, and (3) workers in the public sector. Conversely, the core voting groups for the conservative coalition and the Republican Party are (1) economic and fiscal conservatives; (2) Evangelical or Bible-believing Protestants; and (3) white male workers in the private sector

…there remains one immense independent or swing group, and that is white women. A substantial majority of these now vote for Democratic candidates, with economic issues being primary for working-class women and social issues being primary for middle-class women. If these women continue to vote for the Democratic Party in the future, the prospects for the Republican Party to win most presidential and senatorial elections will remain bleak.

5. I think that what potential factor that could shape up electoral politics is the government debt problem. Will it cause continued political friction, as I predict? And will voters perceive the problem as unsustainable progressive programs or Republican recalcitrance? Keep in mind that objective reality, even assuming that it is knowable, may play little or no role in public perceptions.