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
They have some similar tools for their goals that they share with the left that we classical liberals don’t support and have great disdain for, like using government regulation of the economy to attain goals (using tariffs to knock out competition and to help “protect” the american jobs). On that I agree but this political fight is going to inherently be long and arduous and we need to garner the courage and hope to fight it out.
Our biggest issue is our reliance on using political slogans like the Democrats. Many political candidates both on the right and center of the Republican Party just say we need to keep american industrial jobs or restore American Greatness as if we just need to rewind the clock or that a safety net is needed. We need to identify a few key points like on how those goals can be obtained. Currently only a few presidential candidates have done this. I remember watching on Special Report as Marco Rubio (who many think is an establishment person ergo bad) actually talking about how America’s economy has changed from that industrial era (which it has) specifically and how certain policies could restrict the government in order to allow the market, not government, to flourish.
Not to speak for him, but I’m still confused about the precise definition, and I’m not the only one. Let me frame the question another way:
Is Paul Ryan part of the Establishment?
There are people on here who would absolutely say yes. He’s a former VP candidate, chairman of the most powerful House committee, hugely influential in the party, could have been a formidable candidate. He’s wrong on a few issues (including immigration, although I would take him seriously when he insisted on securing the border). He’s probably taken a few votes to support leadership I wouldn’t agree with in principle.
He’s also the opposite of what most people hate about the “establishment.” He pushed his Medicare plan without leadership support. He’s courageous, principled, conservative, and has unquestionably pushed the party rightward. He is, by every account I’ve read, a decent, even humble man who doesn’t want to be in politics forever — the one plausible candidate not running for President. To many genuine conservatives, he’s a hero.
Establishment or not?
What about Rick Perry, or Scott Walker? What about Hugh Hewitt, or David French? I don’t think everyone here would agree on every definition. We’re not talking about something easily divided into camps, and the terminology is often fuzzy.
Term limits are needed these days. Of course Congress shouldn’t be paid, and wasn’t originally, I don’t think, but today they have a very cushy set-up between a nice salary, and guaranteed income and healthcare for life. And look at how rich the longer serving members get over the course of their careers. Early in our history they weren’t needed. Now the advantage of the incumbency and material benefits of the office make term limits a necessary evil.
Perhaps I should rephrase what I am saying. The reason people are in public office that long is because its become culturally acceptable and even encouraged as morally needed by the political left and their supporters in American culture. In order to in any meaningful way stop these long time serving public office holders you need to change the paradigm of the culture. The classical liberal ideals of public service as more or less citizens doing their civic duty for a certain time in any public office from dog catcher to senator ensures that everyone tries to put some skin in the game and educates people on politics (in both policy and logistics) while also ensuring no one ever feels “compelled” to serve too long. Fighting to compel people’s free will won’t work, showing them the best way to use it will.
I think this observation gets to the heart of a lot of the disconnect between the “heartland” and the “establishment”. The establishment has internalized many of the the assumptions of the left. This often comes through as condescension, or even outright revulsion.
Two examples that spring to mind.
Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” was nothing more than a naked attempt to distance himself from those uncivilized, greedy, heartless, small government types. After all, when people are hurting, the government has to move, amirite?
When Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a lot of questions were raised on the right as to whether she was the best nominee (she was always going to be opposed from the left). The immediate response from the administration? It was all due to sexism. I never had an opinion about Miss Miers, and was reading various opinion pieces to learn something about the pick. But when the administration let loose with the “sexism” charge, it pissed me off. Still does.
We get enough dishonest accusations of bad faith from the left. We don’t need extra helpings from our so-called leadership.
“Is Paul Ryan part of the Establishment?…
We’re not talking about something easily divided into camps, and the terminology is often fuzzy.”
I agree the edges are fuzzy, I agree Ryan straddles the line and I agree even McConnell can convince himself his compromises are for the greater good. I don’t think it’s honest for someone to say they don’t know what you are talking about when you use the phrase “Republican Establishment.”
Oh, and I can’t recall Bush or his people EVER questioning the motives of the Democrats. They were treated as the loyal opposition.
People to his right were occasionally treated like embarrassing hillbilly relatives.
But that fact — that Ryan, who is a major figure in American politics, can’t be easily classified — indicates that the term itself has limited benefit, doesn’t it? I see it used to refer to Ryan and 15 out of 16 Republican presidential candidates. Or I see it used to refer to basically Boehner, McConnell, Bush, and Bush’s fundraisers. And I don’t necessarily know which someone means. It would usually be better to address the specific problem at issue.
Part of the problem is that several different problems tend to get thrown under the same umbrella. There are genuine ideological differences — some Republicans are simply squishy on the issues. There are different views about pragmatism from people mostly on the same page ideologically. There’s corruption, which can affect anyone. There’s the obliviousness of someone out of touch with their voters.
Those aren’t all the same thing.
I think most of us see Establishment more like a cloud than something specific. It’s an abstraction. We are engaging in political discourse; conservative, liberal, libertarian, Democrat, Republican, African American and many more..let’s not forget about gay and now gender….These are all abstractions that we accept. There are no adequate definitions. There aren’t hard lines. But somehow, we have to define establishment?
Think cloud, not rock. Aggregate, a loose collection.
Even the media uses this word to indicate a certain political element. You guys are in the fog and think we are talking about a rock.
I’d add to that, it’s the Bush’s Family Rolodex.
It’s those people that were referred to in that excellent post the other day the ‘Experts’ our fellow Ricochetti’s post about working on that state GOP campaign – sorry couldn’t recall his handle.
This is the same unsatisfied group that was the now demonized/audited/investigated “Tea Party”, these are the people that watched in fury as those “Scamps of Mississippi”, the Barbour’s worked their magic on the primary votes there.
I really don’t care for Trump at all but the GOPe created this Frankenstein they thought they’d demonized, audited, cheated and buried the this undesirable segment (majority) of the base and the hydra manifests itself in some other form.
Talk about the stoopid party – how long and how many different ways has the base voiced its opposition only to be marginalized and ignored. ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’ how stupid were they to think that someone wouldn’t fill it?
PB: “I don’t think it’s honest for someone to say they don’t know what you are talking about when you use the phrase ‘Republican Establishment.'”
It’s honest to the extent that there are at least three different criteria people frequently invoke to place someone in the “establishment” and the different criteria produce different populations of the establishment. It’s a bit confusing when you hear Mitch McConnell (who is to the right of the Senate GOP average on ACU rating and who is the most objectively conservative Senate Majority Leader in living memory) described as establishment because he’s in the leadership and disagrees with Ted Cruz on tactics; Kelly Ayotte (a freshman Senator not in leadership) labeled establishment because she’s a moderate; and Marco Rubio (a darling of the insurgent Tea Party and a solid conservative on all but one issue) part of the establishment because of his stance on immigration.
“Informal and formal networks of influence, comprised of individuals whose personal incentives are not aligned with the overall organizational mission, leading to a principle-agent problem within the overall organizational context.”
“A Closed monoculture, with inadequate feedback mechanisms.”
Okay Salvatore,
How would you define the fissures within the Republican party?
Franco- How about pragmatism vs passion as the driving force behind strategy?
So, Peter. Have you figured it out yet? Did we answer your questions?
Or were you just trolling us?
It was a joke. I had hoped that the jokey tone set in the first part of my post made that clear. My fault for not making it clearer.
With real but separate ideological differences, often involving different people?
That is to say — there are people who are on the same page philosophically but disagree about how to get from A to B. Then there are people who don’t want to go to B anyway. The difference between Olympia Snowe and Tom Coburn is not the same kind of thing as the difference between Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell.
Like x 10.
That seems rather presumptive. Let me guess. The side you are on is pragmatic. my side is passionate? Really?
I thought you were smarter than that. And I thought you thought I was smarter than that. Doubly disappointed.
I wholeheartedly adopt Leigh’s proviso to my comment.
My apologies. I have seen so many populist “Trump is our man!” statements lately that I have begun to think its safer to assume those claiming to be conservative support Trump rather than the other way around and on the forums I frequent a person usually types sarcasm off/on before or after to show tone because on the internet (I am new to Ricochet) there really isn’t a tone aside from bold to imply emphasis.
I agree with #68 and #69. Probably the best legislator we have on the immigration issue is Senator Sessions – who is also Chairman of the Banking Committee and who infuriated Ricochet’s Rand Simberg by directing pork to Alabama porkmeisters instead of the porkmeisters Simberg preferred for some NASA boondoggle. On eight out of ten issues Sessions is definitely establishment. I’m sure if we shined some disinfecting sunlight on Session’s fundraising pitches to the banking industry I would be disappointed.
Just because a Heisenberg principle impacts our definition does not mean the Republican establishment is not a coherent entity, or that fighting it’s influence should be short circuited with disingenuous appeals to what the meaning of “is” is.
I think we have already accounted for those distinctions. The establishment has had it’s way for quite some time.
The next guy they coalesced around was the perfect guy we are told. Pragmatic Rovian hedge-fund funded hedgers who couldn’t put a coherent sentence together articulating conservative ideas. McCain, the media darling who rose to prominence by trashing other (conservative) Republicans and Romney himself circa 2008, and lurched to grab some unprepared hottie but good-souled ex Governor from Alaska to burnish his ‘conservative’ credentials. Picking a VP like that was lazy. McCain won’t or can’t articulate conservatism, so he picks a surrogate. This is pragmatism?
Then McCain suspends his campaign. Suspends his Presidential campaign!
And because the movers and shakers within the GOP screwed up royally , not once but twice, our disaffection, anger , warnings, are indications of “passion”. Got it.
Peter, place a call to Haley Barbour.
If you get Henry or Austin, you can ask them, too.
Franco- Let me try rephrasing how I see the main divide. I think it’s between one side which believes that it is better for the country to have the GOP in power, even if that means a certain amount of heterodoxy and compromise within the party and another side which thinks either the way to win elections is to play to the base and/or it is preferable to have an ideological pure conservative minority than it is to have a center-right governing coalition.
In haste just now, but thanks to everyone who’s participating in this–and a couple of points:
a) Angelo Codevilla’s article, which many have excerpted and commented on in this thread, asserts that a new ruling class has “imposed itself” on us. But how? Barack Obama won not one but two elections. John Boehner has twice been elected Speaker by the members of the House Republican caucus, who in turn have been elected by the people of their districts, while Mitch McConnell is Majority Leader in the Senate because he, too, was elected to the post by his fellow Republican senators. I can understand the argument that the courts, above all the federal courts, have imposed themselves on us, even to the extent of a kind of judicial coup–I would make the argument myself. But surely neither Angelo nor those siding with him here want to say the new “ruling class” is somehow better at winning elections than the rest of us.
Again, where did the “ruling class” come from? Still more to the point, how has it “imposed itself” on us?
b) Angelo argues that if a more skilled and eloquent figure than Donald Trump were to champion ordinary Americans, he would receive Trump-like levels of support. But isn’t that just what Ted Cruz is? Could anyone have proven more eloquent in championing heartland America while railing against federal excesses? Sen. Cruz has even proven remarkably adept at fundraising, bringing in, so far, more than $50 million, placing him (if I have this right) only Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Why then do polls show Sen. Cruz stuck in single digits?
One cannot be both a tedious jerk AND fail to deliver. People will tolerate winners who are jerks. But their Kung fu is weak and discredited, yet somehow are still pricks.
They have nothing left, there is no pragmatism to their pragmatism, and they burnt all the bridges.
Now nobody is listening except for things to make them madder.
Negative internecine partisanship rules the day.
Not to mention running in 2000 against one of (if not the) most wooden, inauthentic, even creepy candidates in at least a generation, with the wind of Clinton fatigue at their back, and barely scraping a win by the skin of their teeth.
This doesn’t invalidate your point, but it’s worth noting that “compromise” is a tricky subject. Take abortion: I won’t accept compromise, in that I won’t vote for a primary candidate I mistrust on the issue but who might have a better chance of getting elected. That would make me “anti-establishment.”
But if there’s a bill on the floor that fails to do everything I think could and should be done but will save lives, I want my representative to vote for it. And I apply that logic elsewhere. We might have an education bill this fall that won’t abolish the Dept. of Ed. and won’t have a federal accountability opt-out. Cruz and Paul will vote against it. But it will likely get rid of some of the worst NCLB mandates and will block Arne Duncan imposing Common Core. I will probably want my representative to vote for it. That would make me “establishment.”