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.
The Abandonment of Conservative Principle
On Laura Ingraham’s website, Lifezette, Edmund Kozack laments the “Constitution worship” of those opposing the populist movement within the GOP:
The Constitution worship of those like Shapiro and Sen. Ted Cruz reveals that the mainstream conservative movement has largely forgotten the principle of imperfectability. The Constitution alone cannot guarantee some sort of political utopia. Man is fallen — a city on a shining hill cannot be guaranteed by a mere piece of paper. The fact that within a decade of the documents’ adoption the government was already trying to subvert it should be a clear indication of that reality.
Ironically, Kozack seems to have forgotten that the Constitution is based on the premise that Man is imperfect and that, therefore, his institutions of power must be restrained.
In its attempt to define conservatism in a way that dovetails its author’s nationalist populism, the piece draws heavily on Russell Kirk. And yet, he seems to forget one of Kirk’s central theses: That private property and freedom are inextricably linked. Something the current leader of the nationalist populists seems to have a problem with.
Never mind all that. Kozack’s original sin is in confusing British toryism of the Kirk/Burke variety with the more classical liberal American conservatism. It’s an important distinction that’s often glossed over.
This is what we mean when we say the nationalist populists have abandoned conservative principle: that, in rejecting classical liberalism and us “Constitution worshipers,” they reject everything that made American conservatism the unique foundation of the freest and greatest nation on this earth.
Published in General
The modifiers ‘very very’ were there for you to see and absorb. The fact that your response ignored the modifiers means in my estimation that you responded to your own straw man and not what I was writing.
Very very implies that only the far right of the bell curve can succeed. That will not work in a republic based on democracy for very long.
It means protection from corruption by the Conservatives and Progressives who assume, for example, the US no longer needs metals fabrication jobs, even when competitive, no longer needs logging jobs, even when there is a demand for timber, no longer needs protection from unilateral subsidies by our “free trade” economic opponents.
You call it luck, I call it arrogance and corruption. To each his own.
You wonder why conservatives are losing the voting public? The Progressives lie boldly when they screw the working class, the Conservatives take pride in it and tell them to get a U-Haul. Both are happy to do the donor bidding.
Our lack of response to economic warfare has killed off entire industries while our opponents add jobs while having tariffs.
I suggest you examine metals fabrication and Chinese economic warfare from 1995 to 2012.
I suggest you examine the Federal war on resource based industries using regulation and outright agency overreach and lawfare against private enterprise with the full support and funding from “conservative” congresses. See “spotted owl accuracy” and logging for starters.
The GOP used to be run by Donors that built the American economy. Now it is run by open borders globalists who care little for the American citizenry.
Unfortunately, as currently practiced in policy, it provides that prosperity to Mexico, China and others, along with a small handful of elite donors in the US. Other than the U Haul industry, it ignores the American working class and assumes they are to keep lowering their living standards to match the third world workers the Conservatives favor. Add open borders and they can import service labor as well.
But TCK1101, if American loggers were just smarter and more motivated, they could make the courts put greater emphasis on their jobs and industries, rather than on environmental concerns.
And if American sheet metal workers and dry wall workers were simply willing to work harder for less money, they could out-compete the Mexicans who now make up so much of the construction trades in America. After all, competition is how you get better, right?
Question: if free trade benefits both parties, why does Shanghai look like it does and Detroit look like it does?
It sure ain’t because only one has a large, centralized, bureaucratic, crony-capitalist government run by left-wingers. They both do.
Don’t take the bait, Jamie.
Guess when principled conservatives start objecting to the “creative disruption” of capitalism?
That would be when, as in “The Grapes of Wrath,” the Caterpillar tractor shows up outside of their home and the sheriff has a piece of paper from the court saying it’s OK to knock the house down.
Until then it’s “Shut up, you little nativist.”
My example also shows how the Constitution offers little protection to the Cokings and Kelos of the world because its principles are subject to interpretation.
A – I’m sorry that I don’t know where “very very smart” falls on the bell curve of intelligence. I do know that I’m not “very very smart” and I’ve succeeded. So your argument falls short.
Now the light comes on for me. I realize there is no point in us discussing this issue further.
Is Donald driving the Caterpillar, to make room for a new casino?
Please see my amended comment #69 which refers back to the subject of “Constitution worshippers.”
It is the free market that should decide what jobs American labor is best suited for, not top down government central planning.
That has absolutely nothing to do with Free Trade.
The Caterpillar tractor in this scenario would have been sent by government central planners who will have decided the cronies they want to protect deserve it more than we do. This problem will not be alleviated by putting the right central planners in power, but by removing all central planners from power.
The problem is not that our economy is too free.
When you have accomplished that little task, come back and talk to me about free trade.
When you have eliminated the minor socio-political fact called the welfare state, come back and talk to me about open borders.
When you have taken the thumb off the scale, come back and talk to me about fair measure.
I support you 100% in your goal.
BBC News – “The expression ‘blood-and-soil’ (Blut und Boden) is German in origin and became a term associated with the Nazis.”
Once again, I have not once at any point in this or any thread endorsed open borders.
I’m beginning to wonder if y’all aren’t hearing voices.
If you have knowledge of what the future holds trust me I, and my bank account, would dearly like to know. The pretense of knowledge is a problem for all sides of the political spectrum and our task is to remove from government any power to act on it.
Your Japan example just bolsters my case – for decades we heard about how Japan’s unfair tactics were stealing our jobs and would destroy the American economy. Now? Japan is mired in a two decades long recession while the American economy has been through numerous boom/bust cycles and continues to be the most dynamic economy in the world.
Free market as in H1B, affirmative action quotas, massive growth in jobs needed to wrangle the administrative state increasing the cost of production in the US while countries with no such ball and chain “compete?” That free market?
You and I have very different definitions of free market.
I certainly have no pretense of knowledge of the future, if it turns out better, that’s great, if worse, some preparedness will be useful.
I’m not concerned with what has happened or may happen in the future for Japan but with what I cannot foresee but will need to be ready for as best as is possible for my country. The productive infrastructure that we no longer have may well be in need of restoration for we do seem to have enemies out there.
I understand you didn’t, @umbrafractus, but what I’m saying is that I, an immigration-restrictionist, might even support open borders IF we eliminated the welfare state.
As you wish.
“A republic if you can keep it.”
We haven’t.
And we won’t recover it by relying on the vanished talismanic power of “The Constitution”.
The basic meanings of the document were debated by the immortals amongst the Founding Fathers. Jefferson vs. Hamilton. Adams vs. Madison. Madison vs. Madison.
The meanings are established by practical political success, often involving very imperfect candidates. Not by arguing over the proper reading of Russell Kirk.
My preferred reading of the Constitution was restored in 1801 by the election of Jefferson.
Which by the way was accomplished by the election of Aaron Burr for all you present day Never Burrs.
You realize that the United states was protectionist during the entire 19th century, yet the country grew rapidly and prospered regardless? And China has prospered mightily despite protectionism today?
Something is lacking in your appreciation of events, I think.
This Post was never going to end pretty. Kozak and at times Laura Ingham, are a bit too “differentiated” and product placed with there Lifezette mockery (theologogy?). They ain’t Dinesh D’Souza and none of them are the rhetorically gifted to play the sleight of hand they attempt.
Cruz was an opportunist playing the populist game and got flanked. Trump was lucky, dumb or random enough to show up at the right place under the false flag of Conservativsm. He is for one thing and one thing only: Trump.
Now Trump is not many things, and he is certainly not a Kirk Conservative, a Burkean or a Constitutional Conservative. He has not read any of them and I will swear to it on “2 Corinthians.” He learned finance well enough at Wharton and did pretty well feeding back the marketing, finance, accounting, policy and human resources lessons. He don’t do history, law, or much else. Fogettaboutit.
And Mr. Kozak, Trump is not “reform” by any means. He buys. He sells. He donates. He hires. He fires. He schmoozes. He chooses. He is wedded to nothing but himself.
No. …we are not talking reform….. We are talking Ayn Rand and the objective standard here, not Conservatism. Trump for Trump, and pray for Congress to watch over us – or maybe only the House.