Republicans aren't against regulation more than Democrats, each side just wants a different set of regulations. Both parties want some level of restrictions on abortion for example, they just disagree on what the regulation should be.
“Starve the beast” in the context of chevron means that regulatory adjudication moves from administrative law judges in agencies to Federal courts. Supposedly this is to align with constitutional principles, but the reality is the except for the richest companies and individuals, litigation in federal court is prohibitively expensive.
Its totally fair to say they aren't conservative anymore though, much like the Democratic party isn't liberal (at least classic liberal, I'm not a fan of the term having been co-opted and redefined).
More importantly to me, I just don't see much light between the base goals of the Republican and Democratic parties. They have done a hell of pushing voters into diametrically opposed corners, but I don't see the same with the parties. They debate details of most topics, but at the end of the day they both seem to be focused on growing the federal government, locking down our borders, and completely ignoring the concept of a budget.
If anything, both parties appear more to be run by neocons putting on a show of division to keep people distracted from what they're actually doing.
This idea that "they are all the same" is just an entirely bogus farce, the last republican tried to remain a king of america less than four years ago, this argument has no weight anymore.
Even if you don’t agree with the policies, the democratic tent requires people to vote for them.
The reactionary position is getting people to say “no” to third rail policies. Hence the GOP focus on suppressing the vote.
What policies specifically do you consider the Democrats having tried to enshrine voter rights? Or do you mean access to voting, rather than the right to vote itself?
For Trump, do you actually think he attempted to make himself a king? Or is that embellishment when your actual view is that he attempted to vircumvent the electoral process and "win" a second term? I can't stand the man personally and would vote for an empty chair before him, but I also didn't read his attempt to flip the electoral result as an attempted annointment or coup.
I view them as effectively the same due to the huge overlap in policy. Both parties are pro-war, both parties want to lock down our borders, both parties want some kind of gun control, both want to limit access to abortion at some level, and both view the supreme court as a place that needs political appointees rather than the most qualified judges.
They absolutely debate the details, but neither party is for a balanced budget. Neither party supports real privacy laws. Neither party values individual freedoms over federal power. Neither party wants to limit federal powers in favor of state-level powers, though both are happy to make that claim only when it suits their specific law they can't get through at the federal level.
It has seemed to me thst both parties cut regulations selectively. The Democrats, for example, fully embrace big pharma and is happy to let them effectively buy the NIH and FDA. This may fit for the Republicans as well, but that woulf be another item on my list of how the parties seem way to similar in my opinion.
Both parties also attempted to ban TikTok, whether that pans out or not.
Mel Gibson even famously was part of an ad campaign to make sure that nobody COULD regulate supplements and to this day there's basically just about anything in those things you can buy at any convenience store.