Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Buchanan on Trump, Or, Could the Good People of Ricochet Help Me Figure This Out?
From Pat Buchanan’s latest column:
…Trump has connected to [a]…powerful current … That is the issue of uncontrolled and illegal immigration, the sense America’s borders are undefended, that untold millions of lawbreakers are in our country, and more are coming. While most come to work, they are taking American jobs and consuming tax dollars, and too many come to rob, rape, murder and make a living selling drugs.
Moreover, the politicians who have talked about this for decades are a pack of phonies who have done little to secure the border.
Trump boasts that he will get the job done, as he gets done all other jobs he has undertaken. And his poll ratings are one measure of how far out of touch the Republican establishment is with the Republican heartland.
The Republican establishment, completely out of touch with the Republican heartland.
In re which, two questions:
1) What is “the Republican establishment?” I’m serious here. How would you define the term?
2) Depending on your definition above, what do you make of Buchanan’s assertion? Is the Republican establishment out of touch with the Republican heartland? Or does Trump’s polling reflect something else–maybe the desire of a lot of Americans of both parties simply to vent their frustrations to pollsters?
Published in General
Does term limits though solve the problem? The issue is currently the defeat of classical liberal ideals in the culture. Thus far we have failed to make the case and the progressive left has made us bleed out the nose with their glorification of the state (since it allegedly represents the whole of society and therefore is impartial and good) which in turn breeds and serves as cover for people to literally seek full time employment as senators or representatives.
As classical liberals we should push back against this and make the case for classical liberalism in American Society so that Americans see civil service as service, not employment. You shouldn’t really get paid to work in serving the people, likewise you shouldn’t need to quit serving after 2 terms because of term limits. You should quit because you understand that you both have a life outside government and that people in government for too long causes stagnation.
Of course the issue with this is that it would require some restraint of government power so it doesn’t attract the lobbying either.
I think it’s people whose livelihood depends on their Republicanism, largely. Elected officials, their administrators, and the periphery, like think-tank employees or media supporting the Republican operation.
To Peter’s first question, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are specific names you can use as “establishment,” and to name two examples that happened just this week:
1) McConnell in a breathtaking act of dishonesty forwarded an amendment to a “must past” Highway bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank while claiming to be against it. The Ex-Im Bank is so far from conservative interests it inhabits a parallel universe. Even the often derided as “establishment” National Review came out against it.
2) Boehner said he needed more information to decide about allow a bill to defund Planned Parenthood be put forward.
That’s the Senate Majority Leader, so highly praised as a “fighter” on the Podcast and the Speaker of the House acting against the interests of the conservative base in the last seven days. I bet you I could find dozens of examples, especially including the most odious tactic of what the hard right calls “Failure Theater” – voting for cloture for a bill you know will pass but cannot make cloture without you or your arm twisting, then voting against the bill and claiming “I tried to stop it! See, I voted against it!” when election time comes.
Really anyone whose income derives directly from the RNC or political candidates on an annual basis can properly be termed “establishment.” You can see why they’re not highly regarded in Martel’s recent excellent post here.
To Peter’s second question, Donald Trump is leading by twelve points in NEW HAMPSHIRE. You know, the state that was pro-Huntsman? The state that makes Southerners tear their hair out because a state that voted for John Kerry over George W. Bush (in what has to be the ne plus ultra of political sanity tests) has an outsized roll in presidential nominations. At what point is this a sincere question and at what point are you just poking the hornet’s nest to see what happens?
Peter was shocked at the pushback here about the Jeb Bush candidacy. He had no idea. All of us travel in different circles. Ricochet is good for Peter. It keeps him in touch, sorta.
Demanding people define the obvious becomes a tactic for some, although I absolve Peter of that charge.
Some things are defined in the aggregate.
You can play this game with just about anything. Define pornography. Who was the Supreme Court Justice who said,”I can’t define it but I know it when I see it“?
It’s not naked women/naked men, because you can see that in an art museum. This is the kind of thing they do with the term “establishment”. Then they imply we are conspiracy theorists merely for recognizing a pattern that plays out continually. They want to break things down to pixel-level and then tell us we are just seeing random dots. The image on your screen is just thousands of random dots.
The the person demanding the definition thinks he’s won the debate, but everyone knows he’s a complete idiot, or else willfully defying the notion by relying on that pathetic tactic. Just because something can’t be defined simply or in a 250 word comment section doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
1.) The Republican establishment are careerist hacks who espouse support for conservative policies in order to get elected, but then do nothing once in office.
2.) Pat Buchanan is a national treasure. And he is correct. The Republican establishment is out of touch with the Republican heartland, not only on border control/immigration issues but on a whole host of other matters as well. But rather than listen to critics like Buchanan, Codevilla, Palin, or Trump, the Republican establishment insults them and their supporters. That is not a winning strategy, to say the least.
Look no further than the Ricochet main feed for fellow travelers, rambling about increasing H1-B visas to being in more brainiacs, and humphing about Donald Trump because he isn’t playing nice with the other children.
But the best example of the type I can give is here in DuPage County Illinois. Here a large number of party regulars are Republican because the Republican Party is ascendant in the county. In Cook County they’d be Democrats. In 1938 Germany they’d be Nazis, in 1938 Russia they’d be Stalinists. They are whoever is on top. It’s all about money and position.
Iran Deal, Planned Parenthood, Deficit Spending, Deteriorating Military, Same Sex Marriage, Prison Reform, 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment. Lousy schools. None of that matters (except as maybe they can be demagogued for electoral advantage) as long as they have their Chinaman (bought and paid for Republican) making sure they (or their connected buddies) get the road contract, the zoning variance, the appointment to a bureaucratic sinecure.
If Iran gets nukes, or gets nuked, or Chicago gets nuked for that matter. Doesn’t matter, couldn’t care less. As long as they can golf at St. Andrews, lunch at the DuPage Club, have their prime rib just the way they like it and their martini stirred not shaken.
Fate of the country? Don’t care. They’re allrightniks, they figure their money will buy positions and connections for their kids. After that it’s too far in the future to think about.
Compare America today to California in 1990 on the subject of immigration. Go read (or reread) Victor Davis Hanson’s book on California. The political blueprint of today’s Democrats is to make tomorrow’s America work as much like today’s California as possible, with all that means. Obama’s immigration policy is crafted solely to advance this political project, as far as I can determine.
The Republican establishment sees this in terms of their future if the whole country turns into California via immigration and if they take this up, they know they will be Pete Wilson. Pete Wilson has no political future.
They know that the success of Democrats in doing this will be the death of their party and of America as they know it. I’m not saying that’s right, but I truly believe this is what we will find if we scratch below the surface just enough to smell their fear. They are basically paralyzed by this prospect.
Trump has certainly picked the target, frozen it, personalized it, and polarized it. I keep seeing an internal image of Bill Clinton and the Donald sitting over a good whiskey and a better cigar sometime in the fall of 2008 talking about longterm Presidential politics and the world of possibilities for audacious people who are good on TV.
“The Republican establishment are those who believe that there is no problem facing America that another martini lunch and lobbyist dinner can’t solve.”
— Pseudodionysius, Esq.
1) I think it is a nonsense term. The establishment simply means whoever is in majority control, I think. It is used as a term of derision, but that usage doesn’t make much sense. The problem that some angry republicans don’t understand is that the “conservative-most” republican electable in one east-coast state may not be the same level of “conservative-ness” as one electable in texas. So we often refer to “the establishment” as more center-right republicans who are willing to compromise our values. But we need to learn how to get along (and work with) those republicans as a national party, which must necessarily include that level of diversity.
2) Republicans are annoyed and they want someone to be obnoxious. Trump has nothing to lose, and sometimes people want candidates to behave as if they have nothing to lose. But they contradict themselves, because they also want professionalism and common sense. Trump may have touched a nerve, but it is like a wave going through a mob of individuals who, on their own, aren’t as caught up in the moment and may look at things rationally. I think Buchanan is totally wrong. No candidate will have his finger simultaneously on every pulse. Trump, right now, in the wake of a ton of gloating on the left (supreme court decisions, perhaps?) is like throwing dishes at the wall. It may feel good, but it is no way to live your life, and we had better figure that out before everything in the house gets broken.
Examples are often good.
If you blame 1992 on Ross Perot rather than Bush the Elder, you might be part of the GOP establishment.
If you ever thought Bob Dole had a snowball’s chance against Clinton in 1996, you might be part of the GOP establishment.
If you thought “Compassionate Conservatism” was a wonderful slogan, you might be part of the GOP establishment.
If you think that the GOP lost in 2008 because of Sarah Palin, you might be part of the GOP establishment.
If you believe “comprehensive immigration reform” is functionally different than amnesty, and that it’ll result in significant inroads into the Hispanic vote, you might be part of the GOP establishment.
If you dismiss Trump’s temporary popularity as little more than the emanations of widespread nativism or racism, you might be part of the GOP establishment.
In a nutshell, if your response to most Jennifer Rubin columns is, “Yep, she’s absolutely right”, you might be part of the GOP establishment.
That’s not an exhaustive list, of course.
The Republican establishment are the guys who sit in the smoke-filled room at the convention and nominate a McCain or a Romney instead of the true conservative that the voters really want. When the voters get to choose they choose a true conservative, such as Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell. I wish the voters got a choice, instead of the establishment getting to choose our candidates.
What’s that you say? There is no smoke-filled room? Is that because smoking is no longer allowed in the convention hall? No, you say, it’s because the Republican voters are the ones who voted for McCain and Romney? Those voters, they are the establishment! I hate them so much.
I’m voting for Trump, a true man of the people.
I have to first admit that I am no fan of Trump, but could you please make the case for why Trump is the man of the people? After that could you please tell me why the man of the people is the right candidate because the mob (or the people) could want human sacrifice for all we know hypothetically.
The mob’s will shouldn’t be an indicator of what is right, principles should be that. Those of us on the political right need to cool our heads rather than be caught up in the heat of the moment by Trump’s incendiary political comments.
Austin, thanks for being specific. I think it’s fair to say that McConnell and Boehner are the GOP leadership in Congress. That much is obvious. Ex-Im is corporate welfare. It’s not surprising to me that some elected GOP Congressmen and Senators favor such a policy. Again, it’s of-a-piece with the “getting re-elected” wing of the party. I don’t really think Ex-Im is a great idea, but I also don’t think it’s of great national consequence. And, because Ex-Im Bank acts as a subsidy to American companies exporting big things that require a lot of U.S. manufacturing jobs, it’s the sort of policy that nativist, Buchananite protectionists, and hence Trump supporters, should favor.
As for Boehner’s position on Planned Parenthood, I’d call it measured. He probably realizes that defunding isn’t realistic with Barack Obama in office, so let the investigations play out before making the matter a major legislative priority. Because, you know, as bad as these videos are, and as much as Planned Parenthood should get nothing from the federal government, it’s not that much money, it will cause a huge fight that Republicans will lose, and at the end of the day, abortion–the thing that is killing all those unborn babies–will still be perfectly legal, probably forever, and there’s not a thing that Boehner can do to change that.
But, the Establishment!!!! ***shakes fist at sky***
Maybe you can extend this a bit. It seems to me the GOP had successes in Congress in the last three elections and I think they have at least three-fifths of the states’ executive and legislative functions. They don’t have the White House.
I’m from Utah. For me, Orrin Hatch is the Republican establishment and Mike Lee is not. In Texas, it looks like John Cornyn is the establishment and Ted Cruz is not. In Kentucky, McConnell is the establishment and Rand Paul is not. The Republican establishment wants Jeb Bush, there are probably any number of reasons driving this, but probably none of those reasons would get my vote.
Bob, that’s a fair point. I think the difference there, perhaps, is age and seniority. Cruz doesn’t have to worry about legislative priorities. He’s not in a leadership position, and has used his Senate seat to launch a presidential campaign. Although he talks a big game, and I like him sometimes, let’s be realistic: he has no real significant, conservative legislative achievements, nor could he, given that Barack Obama has sat in the White House for his entire, brief tenure in federal office. I like that he’s come up in the Tea Party Age and seems truly devoted to conservative principles, but let’s see what he and his ilk can accomplish a decade hence. If they’ve achieved one thing–reform of entitlements to avoid fiscal catastrophe for the U.S.–I’ll be happy to eat my words about the “Establishment” being something that exists only in certain fevered minds.
I will admit like some of the others a measure of fascination regarding Peter’s asking about the term “Republican establishment.” Not critical. Just fascinated.
It probably sounds ruder than I intend. I figured that with all of the Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson interviews, he would have more of a sense of the discontent that conservatives feel towards the leadership of the GOP in Washington.
So far you have shot down (sorta) one aspect of the charge that these people are establishment.
Shoot down the hundreds of others and then you may have some kind of case. There’s always a reason. Explain it all away for us. We are deluded. Conspiracy theorists who see a pattern that isn’t there. Because this instance …. It’s like the friend who always needs favors but is unavailable when you need a favor from him. Somehow, he always has a a reason.
“Again, it’s of-a-piece with the “getting re-elected” wing of the party.”
Another synonym for establishment wing of the party (which doesn’t exist…).
What the various comments of this thread together recognize are circles of power emanating from the central players.
As a king depends on lords who derive their power from his, so corporate leaders and media managers derive their influence from closeness with political leaders. Is the problem the king? Is it the lords? Or does corruption need to be uprooted even beyond the castle walls?
Corruption spirals outward. Some focus only on its origins. Others prefer to condemn the entire cascade of power-mongers. Thus, “establishment” sometimes refers to a select few and other times to all the people who even verbally support the problem.
Franco, give me more charges to shoot down!!!
Anyway, let’s not give Boehner too much significance in the grand scheme of things. If the PP thing can be used to get Republicans in charge, go for it. Play it for all it’s worth in whatever way works. Nobody disagrees with that. Certainly not Boehner.
I just think that everybody who jeers him as “Establishment” misses that he must set priorities. He must try and fight where it matters and there can be an impact. Maybe that’s Iran right now. I don’t know, to be honest, because I’m just a guy in Philadelphia not doing his job at the moment. But, I’m guessing his calculus on the issue was something like I laid out.
1) GOP leadership: McConnell, Boehner, Reince Priebus, and others, like McCain.
2) If we stop shooting the messenger for a moment, I would say he’s spot on. What is there to question?
It’s partly fuzzy because it’s a big country.
I’m a relative newcomer to a purple state. It seems the state Republicans are positioned firmly in a circular firing squad — at least judging from what little I can learn in trying to scout out conservative news sources. As best as I can tell, the legislative leadership is not as conservative as I’d like, and seems like there’s corruption in the mix. A bitter gubernatorial primary left scars and helped put a Democrat in office. I can’t find much coverage of serious policy debates among conservatives. I find passionate debate about whether we’ll have a primary or a convention, and still more passionate debate about the procedural tricks the other side is pulling off (from both the “establishment” and “tea party”). I don’t trust any of them.
The last Republican governor is headed to jail.
I moved here from another purple state. I wasn’t there long either, but its politics are easier to follow — because there’s a flourishing conservative movement and effective conservative media. There are ideological differences, but no sharp divide. There are “moderates”, but the conservatives often persuade or outmaneuver them. There are people with real principles. I don’t trust them all — but the conservative media is much more effective at keeping them accountable and keeping people informed, if they want to be.
The Republican governor is leading in Iowa and might be headed to the White House.
Directed to the group: Is there a conservative equivalent to Ted Kennedy in the Senate? Is there even one on the rise?
Via planned bankruptcy?
I think people are not accounting fully for political structure. The US legislative body is set up in a way that hampers change inherently. Its hard to get a 66% support for any polarized proposal unless the vast majority of the populace supports it. This is the issue conservatives are having with the current political landscape. The progressives worked to establish this massive government over a hundred years starting back in 1900. It will take a significantly long time to take that back and as you mentioned, conservatives are winning at the state level and that is key to winning the national.
You have to build up that social capital to the conservative cause first and then you win back the nation.
The problem is deeper. I’ve always understood the “calculus” even agreed with it on many occasions.
It’s just that, I helped you move and when I asked you to help me move, you had to work, even though I took off work to help you move. Then you asked me to walk your dog when you were away. I walked your dog for a week. When I asked you to walk my dog, you couldn’t because you were going on your own vacation. Then you asked me to co-sign a loan for your car. I did. Then you defaulted on it because your daughter had medical bills due to a horrific illness. It was never your fault, I know. Now you are asking me to co-sign on your mortgage. You always had good reasons. You always had good intentions. But this time the answer is no.
Somehow, with these establishment Republicans, there’s always a reason they are unable or unwilling to push legislation, support a given narrative, defend a certain position.
But GO Eagles!
1) Republicans holding office (with rare exceptions) and those members of the base who voted for them in the primary.
2) There certainly seems to be a gulf between the elected GOP and a vocal part of the electorate, but I’m not sure if it is accurate to call that part of the electorate the “heartland.” The dispute seems to be about 1) whether the best way to win elections is to appeal to the right of the base or to the general electorate; and/or 2) whether conservatism is better advanced by having an ideologically pure minority or a more compromising majority.
So if he knows he’ll lose the funding fight either way, why not speak out strongly against it? What does he have to gain by pulling his punches? There are plenty of people on the fence about abortion, or even who support abortion, who find this sale of fetal body parts repugnant.
The Republican establishment used to be known as the Rockefeller wing of the party. Not much (other than the name) has changed over the last 50 years and more.
Partially true. However the establishment Republicans essentially agree with the narratives that Democrats/leftists use to perpetuate this political landscape and undermine any possible “social capital” that could be gained by trashing conservatives and their message.
Peter I have to agree with the comments upthread taking you to task for posing the question this way. Even if it was only a rhetorical device, for those of us out in the hinderland the premise that you don’t know who the establishment is by now is extremely hurtful. It’s like the scene in Braveheart where Wallace pulls the helmet off his attacker and sees it was Robert the Bruce all along. If you don’t know who the establishment is what hope do we have? We see our children’s birthright being squandered by an uncaring, post-patriotic nomenklatura, and the establishment of the Republican Party is an integral part of that nomenklatura – immigration is only the most obvious element of that divide. Please explain why McConnell can’t throw us plebes a bone on the Im-Ex Bank? And why not one – not one of the 16 candidates other than Trump can cut through the sophistries and platitudes about immigration.