The Real Problem Is: We are Losing

 

Anyone on the right can look back at the last 50 years and see the long string of losses to the left. They have set the agenda and they have set the direction. A Republican made nice with China and took us off the gold standard. While Reagan won the Cold War and cut taxes, everything else on the domestic front went the Left’s way. Bush and Clinton both raised taxes. Deficit spending has been the way of the nation in almost every year I have been alive. We no longer need any sort of war to spend and spend. Each President of the last generation more than doubled the previous president’s debt.

The Left controls all the big companies, all the universities, and thanks to the administrative state, they write all the new rules that are effectively laws. From Sea to Shining Sea, the Left has moved from victory to victory, and the Right goes from defeat to defeat. I will admit we have made progress on guns, but that looks to be a lot less safe a win for the Right, than say Obamacare was for the Left.

Who do I blame? Conservatism, Inc. for signing on to the Globalism vision. We are now dependent on China, an avowed enemy, for too many vital goods and services. We have gone from a nation of manufacturing to a nation of service employees. We are losing the Republic and we are losing against China, which will soon eclipse us in every way possible. I expect my children will be my age in a world dominated by China.

Of course the people at Conservatism, Inc. will long be dead.

.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 107 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    My point is that we American conservatives pretend that conservatism is popular when it is not. Our problems go way beyond outsourcing our manufacturing.

    But I still think we need to stop that.

    • #91
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I liked Hamilton long before a musical I have not seen. Jefferson was foolish about the reality of Man, and, when get got into power, turned out to be an utter hypocrite. Had Adams engaged in the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson would have been apoplectic. Jefferson is the heart and soul of the Democrat party going back to the founding of the party: “Different rules for us when we are in power”.

     

    And you are more knowledgeable than just “Hamilton is good, Jefferson is bad”. You can engage on the topic better than someone who just watched Hamilton. I’m sure you are better able to say some of the things Hamilton supported were not good. I’m sure you are able to agree with subsidiarity while liking a lot of Hamilton’s other positions. I’m sure you are capable of having a deep conversation on the pros and cons of federalism without saying “Hamilton was for central government, so it must be good.”

    My comments about using Hamilton’s casting as a pre-emptive sorting mechanism prior to learning the substance of the issues still stands even if I think everything in the first paragraph of this comment is true.

    OK. 

    And Hamilton was not for the sort of central government we have today that I can tell. 

    • #92
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    The author ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Our country was forever changed by the Great Depression and FDR’s authoritarian response.

    The state of the Republican Party after World War II was so dire that Eisenhower ran as a Republican in 1952 simply because he feared one-party (Democrat) rule. The House was fully controlled by Democrats from 1954 to 1994 (40 years!). The Senate was controlled by Democrats for 26 straight years (1954 to 1980). In 1965, LBJ had a super-majority in the Senate 68-32 and a 180-seat majority in the House.

    Conservatives like to say that this is a center-right country. The truth is, it has been center-left since 1932. That’s why the left controls our universities, schools, media, corporations, entertainment, etc. We’ve only had three conservative “blips” since 1932: Reagan, the Contract with America, and Trump. That’s it.

    Conservatism is not popular. We delude ourselves by believing otherwise.

    Democrats from the 50s and 60s and even 70s are not like Democrats now.

    No they’re not. But does that matter? They planted their foul seeds decades ago and are now reaping the harvest.

    I don’t think the 50s-60s-70s Democrats are the ones that planted the seeds.

    • #93
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    The author ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Our country was forever changed by the Great Depression and FDR’s authoritarian response.

    The state of the Republican Party after World War II was so dire that Eisenhower ran as a Republican in 1952 simply because he feared one-party (Democrat) rule. The House was fully controlled by Democrats from 1954 to 1994 (40 years!). The Senate was controlled by Democrats for 26 straight years (1954 to 1980). In 1965, LBJ had a super-majority in the Senate 68-32 and a 180-seat majority in the House.

    Conservatives like to say that this is a center-right country. The truth is, it has been center-left since 1932. That’s why the left controls our universities, schools, media, corporations, entertainment, etc. We’ve only had three conservative “blips” since 1932: Reagan, the Contract with America, and Trump. That’s it.

    Conservatism is not popular. We delude ourselves by believing otherwise.

    Democrats from the 50s and 60s and even 70s are not like Democrats now.

    No they’re not. But does that matter? They planted their foul seeds decades ago and are now reaping the harvest.

    I don’t think the 50s-60s-70s Democrats are the ones that planted the seeds.

    The great society was enough. They start central planning and social engineering, and the whole thing feeds back on itself. Then people vote for more because everything’s going downhill. 

    • #94
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    The author ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Our country was forever changed by the Great Depression and FDR’s authoritarian response.

    The state of the Republican Party after World War II was so dire that Eisenhower ran as a Republican in 1952 simply because he feared one-party (Democrat) rule. The House was fully controlled by Democrats from 1954 to 1994 (40 years!). The Senate was controlled by Democrats for 26 straight years (1954 to 1980). In 1965, LBJ had a super-majority in the Senate 68-32 and a 180-seat majority in the House.

    Conservatives like to say that this is a center-right country. The truth is, it has been center-left since 1932. That’s why the left controls our universities, schools, media, corporations, entertainment, etc. We’ve only had three conservative “blips” since 1932: Reagan, the Contract with America, and Trump. That’s it.

    Conservatism is not popular. We delude ourselves by believing otherwise.

    Democrats from the 50s and 60s and even 70s are not like Democrats now.

    You know, I wasn’t self-aware for most of the 50s, but I remember Democrats from the 60s and 70s, and it seems to me that fundamentally Democrats have always been the big spenders (of others’ money).  I listened to a debate yesterday between Bill Kristol (unknown political affiliation, but still  neo-con) and Scott Horton (anti-war libertarian) and I got the impression that this debate (minus the Monday-morning criticisms of Korea and Viet Nam and the historical references to post-9/11 wars, respectively) looked like it could have been argued in the mid-sixties:  Nationalist warhawk Republican versus 60s peacenik Democrat.  Certainly the language and framing of the political conflict between these two views has changed (CRT and western demolition, etc.) but it seems to me that they are the exact same mind-sets.

    • #95
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Stina (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Musicals where they pretend the Founding Fathers were black, perhaps?

    Yes! And that even colors our perception of history! I grew up with an overwhelmingly negative view of Hamilton from a conservative position. He’s the guy behind the National Bank, right? But he’s useful to modern, left politics.

    Portraying him as black in our culture gives him an almost untouchable aura while debate swirls around the founding fathers being racist. You don’t need to be well informed in our culture to now have a “feeling” that Jefferson was the bad guy and Hamilton the good guy, and that perception colors how one receives new knowledge. Hamilton = good, National bank and federal reserve and centralized government = good. It’s building connections without having to actually learn the words or the debate.

    I’ve learned a bit about early education as a mom trying to work with my kids. There are tricks to patterns and sorting that teach kids later, complex skills before they ever learn them.

    Hamilton capitalizes on those early learning skills. The student is learning to sort good and bad before learning the issues surrounding the men.

    I believe he was the guy behind the Whiskey Rebellion and its brutal put down, too.

    • #96
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    The author ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Our country was forever changed by the Great Depression and FDR’s authoritarian response.

    The state of the Republican Party after World War II was so dire that Eisenhower ran as a Republican in 1952 simply because he feared one-party (Democrat) rule. The House was fully controlled by Democrats from 1954 to 1994 (40 years!). The Senate was controlled by Democrats for 26 straight years (1954 to 1980). In 1965, LBJ had a super-majority in the Senate 68-32 and a 180-seat majority in the House.

    Conservatives like to say that this is a center-right country. The truth is, it has been center-left since 1932. That’s why the left controls our universities, schools, media, corporations, entertainment, etc. We’ve only had three conservative “blips” since 1932: Reagan, the Contract with America, and Trump. That’s it.

    Conservatism is not popular. We delude ourselves by believing otherwise.

    Democrats from the 50s and 60s and even 70s are not like Democrats now.

    You know, I wasn’t self-aware for most of the 50s, but I remember Democrats from the 60s and 70s, and it seems to me that fundamentally Democrats have always been the big spenders (of others’ money). I listened to a debate yesterday between Bill Kristol (unknown political affiliation, but still neo-con) and Scott Horton (anti-war libertarian) and I got the impression that this debate (minus the Monday-morning criticisms of Korea and Viet Nam and the historical references to post-9/11 wars, respectively) looked like it could have been argued in the mid-sixties: Nationalist warhawk Republican versus 60s peacenik Democrat. Certainly the language and framing of the political conflict between these two views has changed (CRT and western demolition, etc.) but it seems to me that they are the exact same mind-sets.

    The 60s peaceniks were part of the COUNTER-culture, not the Culture.  

    Democrat presidents have started/begun our involvement in just as many wars as Republicans, if not more.

    • #97
  8. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    The author ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Our country was forever changed by the Great Depression and FDR’s authoritarian response.

    The state of the Republican Party after World War II was so dire that Eisenhower ran as a Republican in 1952 simply because he feared one-party (Democrat) rule. The House was fully controlled by Democrats from 1954 to 1994 (40 years!). The Senate was controlled by Democrats for 26 straight years (1954 to 1980). In 1965, LBJ had a super-majority in the Senate 68-32 and a 180-seat majority in the House.

    Conservatives like to say that this is a center-right country. The truth is, it has been center-left since 1932. That’s why the left controls our universities, schools, media, corporations, entertainment, etc. We’ve only had three conservative “blips” since 1932: Reagan, the Contract with America, and Trump. That’s it.

    Conservatism is not popular. We delude ourselves by believing otherwise.

    Democrats from the 50s and 60s and even 70s are not like Democrats now.

    You know, I wasn’t self-aware for most of the 50s, but I remember Democrats from the 60s and 70s, and it seems to me that fundamentally Democrats have always been the big spenders (of others’ money). I listened to a debate yesterday between Bill Kristol (unknown political affiliation, but still neo-con) and Scott Horton (anti-war libertarian) and I got the impression that this debate (minus the Monday-morning criticisms of Korea and Viet Nam and the historical references to post-9/11 wars, respectively) looked like it could have been argued in the mid-sixties: Nationalist warhawk Republican versus 60s peacenik Democrat. Certainly the language and framing of the political conflict between these two views has changed (CRT and western demolition, etc.) but it seems to me that they are the exact same mind-sets.

    The 60s peaceniks were part of the COUNTER-culture, not the Culture.

    Democrat presidents have started/begun our involvement in just as many wars as Republicans, if not more.

    Well, they were called the counter culture, but their roots intellectual and otherwise, I think, went much further back.  But still, the arguments then are the exact same arguments today.

    • #98
  9. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Stina (View Comment):
    Portraying him as black in our culture gives him an almost untouchable aura while debate swirls around the founding fathers being racist. You don’t need to be well informed in our culture to now have a “feeling” that Jefferson was the bad guy and Hamilton the good guy, and that perception colors how one receives new knowledge. Hamilton = good, National bank and federal reserve and centralized government = good. It’s building connections without having to actually learn the words or the debate.

    But all the Founding Fathers are played by minorities, including Jefferson.  The only white role in the whole cast is King George.

    • #99
  10. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    Reagan ran horrible deficits

    He really did. It went straight up from there and we never looked back.

    Walter Williams frequently raked Reagan over the coals for this.

    Yeah but Congress ran the deficits not the executive branch. The only time in my lifetime where deficits decreased was the Gingrich congress. 

    • #100
  11. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I liked Hamilton long before a musical I have not seen. Jefferson was foolish about the reality of Man, and, when get got into power, turned out to be an utter hypocrite. Had Adams engaged in the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson would have been apoplectic. Jefferson is the heart and soul of the Democrat party going back to the founding of the party: “Different rules for us when we are in power”.

     

    And you are more knowledgeable than just “Hamilton is good, Jefferson is bad”. You can engage on the topic better than someone who just watched Hamilton. I’m sure you are better able to say some of the things Hamilton supported were not good. I’m sure you are able to agree with subsidiarity while liking a lot of Hamilton’s other positions. I’m sure you are capable of having a deep conversation on the pros and cons of federalism without saying “Hamilton was for central government, so it must be good.”

    My comments about using Hamilton’s casting as a pre-emptive sorting mechanism prior to learning the substance of the issues still stands even if I think everything in the first paragraph of this comment is true.

    OK.

    And Hamilton was not for the sort of central government we have today that I can tell.

    Let me know when fine distinctions make a difference in cultural perception.

    • #101
  12. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Bryan,

    Some of your other posts have convinced me that you are a dedicated Christian. Read your New Testament. Clearly, it is supposed to get worse until Christ comes again. And it is. Doesn’t relieve us of our responsibility to try to further the Kingdom of God, and to evangelize those with ears to hear. But it is going to get worse. Until Christ comes again.

    I don’t think the end times are near. People have been saying that forever.

    One of these days!  ;) Well we are getting closer to it day by day. That is undeniable. 

    • #102
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I liked Hamilton long before a musical I have not seen. Jefferson was foolish about the reality of Man, and, when get got into power, turned out to be an utter hypocrite. Had Adams engaged in the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson would have been apoplectic. Jefferson is the heart and soul of the Democrat party going back to the founding of the party: “Different rules for us when we are in power”.

     

    And you are more knowledgeable than just “Hamilton is good, Jefferson is bad”. You can engage on the topic better than someone who just watched Hamilton. I’m sure you are better able to say some of the things Hamilton supported were not good. I’m sure you are able to agree with subsidiarity while liking a lot of Hamilton’s other positions. I’m sure you are capable of having a deep conversation on the pros and cons of federalism without saying “Hamilton was for central government, so it must be good.”

    My comments about using Hamilton’s casting as a pre-emptive sorting mechanism prior to learning the substance of the issues still stands even if I think everything in the first paragraph of this comment is true.

    OK.

    And Hamilton was not for the sort of central government we have today that I can tell.

    Let me know when fine distinctions make a difference in cultural perception.

    I am not going to trash Hamilton, the man or the play. I am not even sure what your point is here, other than the left distorts history. 

    • #103
  14. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I am not going to trash Hamilton, the man or the play. I am not even sure what your point is here, other than the left distorts history. 

    Denigration of white culture was ultimately my point.

    Hamilton the musical is a twofer – it is a cultural phenomenon where the founders are portrayed as black men. It mitigates the contributions of Anglo-Saxon Americans and promotes black culture. The promotion of black culture isn’t bad. And I would mind the color swap if it weren’t part of the larger trend.

    The other half is the use of an already existent culture of white people bad, black people saints to promote a complex argument in terms of good vs bad. Jefferson is currently having his reputation destroyed in the culture while Hamilton’s is being promoted. The low information voters will respond to complex discussions along the lines of personality and celebrity. Hamilton was a central government guy. I hear he was pretty cool. Yeah, did you see Hamilton? Yeah. That guy is awesome. Jefferson was for less central government. Wasn’t he a slave owner? Yeah. How racist is that? The guy was evil. I even heard he raped his slaves.

    Conclusion : big federal government is good. State government is bad.

    • #104
  15. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Manny (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Bryan,

    Some of your other posts have convinced me that you are a dedicated Christian. Read your New Testament. Clearly, it is supposed to get worse until Christ comes again. And it is. Doesn’t relieve us of our responsibility to try to further the Kingdom of God, and to evangelize those with ears to hear. But it is going to get worse. Until Christ comes again.

    I don’t think the end times are near. People have been saying that forever.

    One of these days! ;) Well we are getting closer to it day by day. That is undeniable.

    We are on the verge of One World Government, the UN’s 2030 agenda is already being not only espoused but implemented.  For the first time in human history is is possible to shutter someone’s right to buy and sell, through cancelling bank accounts and credit cards, but also through soft-mandating of firings over WrongThink and now inoculation status.  And the One World Religion is the only thing left to show itself.

    Jesus’ first warning of the end times was, Don’t be deceived.  People have been “saying that” for the past two hundred years but only now is the world in a position in which it is literally able to come true, is literally coming true, and people are stating and writing about their intention to do it.

    • #105
  16. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I am not going to trash Hamilton, the man or the play. I am not even sure what your point is here, other than the left distorts history.

    Denigration of white culture was ultimately my point.

    Hamilton the musical is a twofer – it is a cultural phenomenon where the founders are portrayed as black men. It mitigates the contributions of Anglo-Saxon Americans and promotes black culture. The promotion of black culture isn’t bad. And I would mind the color swap if it weren’t part of the larger trend.

    The other half is the use of an already existent culture of white people bad, black people saints to promote a complex argument in terms of good vs bad. Jefferson is currently having his reputation destroyed in the culture while Hamilton’s is being promoted. The low information voters will respond to complex discussions along the lines of personality and celebrity. Hamilton was a central government guy. I hear he was pretty cool. Yeah, did you see Hamilton? Yeah. That guy is awesome. Jefferson was for less central government. Wasn’t he a slave owner? Yeah. How racist is that? The guy was evil. I even heard he raped his slaves.

    Conclusion : big federal government is good. State government is bad.

    Wait until I get NEA funding for my Roots musical, where all the slaves are white…

    • #106
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I am not going to trash Hamilton, the man or the play. I am not even sure what your point is here, other than the left distorts history.

    Denigration of white culture was ultimately my point.

    Hamilton the musical is a twofer – it is a cultural phenomenon where the founders are portrayed as black men. It mitigates the contributions of Anglo-Saxon Americans and promotes black culture. The promotion of black culture isn’t bad. And I would mind the color swap if it weren’t part of the larger trend.

    The other half is the use of an already existent culture of white people bad, black people saints to promote a complex argument in terms of good vs bad. Jefferson is currently having his reputation destroyed in the culture while Hamilton’s is being promoted. The low information voters will respond to complex discussions along the lines of personality and celebrity. Hamilton was a central government guy. I hear he was pretty cool. Yeah, did you see Hamilton? Yeah. That guy is awesome. Jefferson was for less central government. Wasn’t he a slave owner? Yeah. How racist is that? The guy was evil. I even heard he raped his slaves.

    Conclusion : big federal government is good. State government is bad.

    Wait until I get NEA funding for my Roots musical, where all the slaves are white…

    Or if you’re going to have black slaves, set it in Africa, where the masters were black too.  And/or muslim

    • #107
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.