The ignorance of the Washington Post

Consider the article 

The Trump-Vance ticket aligns the GOP with Europe’s far right

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/07/19/trump-vance-far-right-europe/

My response:

Vance has advanced certain positions.

Do those positions have a distinguished intellectual predecessor in America?

Absolutely.

The thoughts of Patrick J. Buchanan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan

See any of his many books.

They are examples of a school of American conservative thought called "paleoconservativism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism ,

that long predated Donald Trump.

For a long-running magazine that has presented the paleoconservative view, especially from a Catholic POV, see 

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicles_%28magazine%29

Evidently either people at WaPo are either ignorant of those facts or want to consign them to the memory hole.

My opinion:

The senior editors at WaPo know all this, but don't want to give it any intellectual respectability.

Instead, they want to act as if these ideas started with Donald Trump.

------------

Let me give another example.

The author of the WaPo article writes

"For decades, the Republicans styled themselves as ...

hawkish on the threats posed by autocrats abroad."

At least in the 1950s, the main focus of conservative foreign policy thinking was to oppose the spread of communism.

There was a slogan back then 

"Better dead than red" which indicates what was considered the enemy.

We certainly made peace with some autocrats.

Like, say, the Shah of Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi .

BTW,  why did we support the Shah?

Because what was considered, by the American establishment, in those days to be the enemy, and a threat to America, were not autocrats per se, but the USSR and its ideology of Marxism.

And the Shah provided a bulwark against southern expansion of the USSR and Marxism.