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 GOP Needs To ‘Primary’ The “Old” Strategists/Commentators
So … we find that the veteran (experience is not a strength if it is all bad) political class of “strategists, commentators and consultants” (join us on our next cruise … please, clap) and their fans are gearing up for another failed run in 2020. Oh my, but they are gaining in confidence once again, listening to each other in their extremely comfortable echo chamber. Mitt! Jeb! John (my dad was a postman)!
Seriously?! C’Mon Man!
President Reagan is rolling over in his grave … “There you go again”.
It’s bad enough that they are regurgitating all of the old, tired and losing ideas of their conventional “wisdom” (lol, how many times do they need to lose to learn from their loserdom), but once again they embrace the corpse of President Reagan to wrap themselves in, as if they ever had anything to do with President Reagan’s policies, popularity or prosperity. No, they fought him in 1976 and 1980 and only embraced him after he defeated them, all merely in order to claim his personal successes as theirs and to promptly turn around and end the legacy he had built. ‘Conservatism’ to them was, and is, icky. They say it needs a “thousand points of light” or “compassion” (wretch) to accompany it, or it is a nasty thing to be avoided. Nah Baby, nah.
President Reagan’s policies and perspective on government are much closer to President Trump’s, than to the failed rhetoric of the GOP, Inc. losers and their handlers. Limited government, lower taxes, peace through strength and the fact that America is a country of exceptional people and the freest country on the face of the earth. Make it great again indeed.
And what is with all of this pretentious and emotional fixation on the person? The failed GOP commentariat and their zombie sycophants are obsessed with Trump, the person. Trump, Trump, Trump. And they conversely focus on their “ideal” profile of a candidate. To them, it’s all about the person, the elitist chin and the image (vomit). People! That’s what the Dems do. And they do it better than Kristol, Murphy & Co.’s ‘socialism lite’. You are playing a losing game to follow their lead. Again.
No one knows who will be running in 2020. It is light years away, politically speaking. President Trump is unconventional in every way. He is not predictable and most especially to this collection of GOP, Inc. buffoons genius’. He may not even run for re-election. Peggy Noonan (a NeverTrumper who still can make good observations) writes last week that he could say … “I accomplished in four years what other guys couldn’t do in eight!” … “My work is done!” But make no mistake, if he goes this route, he will select his successor and set them up for victory in 2020, unlike W, who basically set his party, and country, up for failure in 2008 and the imposition of Obama socialism for eight years.
But whether the candidate is the re-election of President Trump, or his hand-picked apprentice, GOP, Inc. better get on board with the winning direction and message for their voters. MAGA, version 2.0. Voters equal ‘populism’ and populism is not a bad thing. President Reagan was a populist. That is only a dirty word to the GOP, Inc. elitists. The only future success of the GOP is to be the proudly American party and the bold and courageous opposition to the Socialist Democrats. That means ditch Mitt, John. Jeff, Ben and whatever other milquetoast ‘magic ponies’ Kristol/Murphy come up with. There is a lesson to be learned with the demise of the Weakly Standard. The party and magic pony of Kristol/Murphy is dead.
2020 is either the re-election of President Trump or it is a continuation of the Trump policies and his Apprentice ticket. Elect Mike Pence/Nikki Haley if the President chooses not to run. And it’s all about the policies, not the person.
Get with the program, GOP. Or lose again.
Published in General
Concerns are not principled, solutions are.
No, the Revolution was not populist because it wasn’t particularly popular by the “common people.”
Psst. Don’t look now, but your elitist underwear is showing.
Is patriotism unprincipled? How about Burkean conservatism?
Moving our embassy to Jerusalem is an example of accomplishment of a deed, not words.
Enabling our energy production to ascend to first in the world is another. Do you purchase what fuels our economy and lifestyle ?
Do you have a job ? More do now than before.
How is your 401(k) doing over the past two years ?
I think you might be confusing the ‘beginning’ with the ‘ending’. Maybe you should do some research and see if Cornwallis, Ferguson, and Tarleton might consider it to have ended populist.
Yes, it was not a populist uprising. It was never particularly popular among the “ordinary people.”
Only elitists understand history?
There was more than one uprising doing the War for Independence.
Patriotism is not necessarily unprincipled. What distinguishes American patriotism for European “Blood and soil” nationalism is American patriotism is principled based. Anyone can become an American if you buy into the founding principles.
No reason he couldn’t have been both. And he was both.
Now you are getting somewhere.
Moving our embassy to Jerusalem has not impacted my life at all.
Our energy production increased dramatically under Obama and was technology, not government driven.
What specific policies led to increased jobs?
No, he was not both. He did not decide what position to take on the basis of what was popular.
It was no more popular at the end than the beginning.
There were populist elements in it, though. George Washington took great pains to keep the populace on his side, which meant doing things differently than the British did. And those soldiers who were in it for populist reasons afterwards started to question whether Federalist/aristocratic rule was what they had really signed up for. So you had the 2nd revolution in the election of 1800.
George Washington was not a populist, but partly out of military necessity he helped plant the seeds of populism that sprouted soon after he died.
BTW, I highly recommend Ron Formisano’s 2008 book about populist movements in early America: “For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the 1850s.” Formisano is a faculty member at the same university where Ricochet member @JeromeDanner works. I learned about Formisano through Mr. Danner’s podcast interview with one of Formisano’s graduate students. He is supposedly working on a book about later populist movements in the United States.
That may be a reasonable assessment. But it was very popular with the maybe one-third of the people who cared about independence and who did the fighting. That’s what enables things to happen. There were those who resisted and those who didn’t care but their views did not win.
This makes me laugh because the actual policy of Conservative, Inc has been to mildly resist the current lunacy of the Left while embracing the penultimate one. That’s why The conservative case for [fill in any recent lefty lunacy] is such a joke. Examples abound:
The conservative case for gay marriage
The Conservative Case for Universal Healthcare
The Conservative Case For Solar
The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton
A Conservative Case for Climate Action
I can agree with “A Conservative Case” for a lot of things. I roll my eyes when I see “The Conservative Case” for anything.
Who is this “ordinary man” or “common people” of which you speak?
And how do you distinguish him from the leaders? Or should I say ‘betters’?
Fair point, though I’m not sure that semantic distinction is respected by the authors of such pieces. The content of the last link is indistinguishable from the other four in its embracing of leftist premises. Once you accept the premise, all that remains is to argue over the details.
It brings peace to many more than you.
“Our energy production increased dramatically under Obama and was technology, not government driven.”
Keystone Pipeline ? Opening federal land for production ?
“What specific policies led to increased jobs?”
Less regulation, the release of entrepreneurial spirit.
Your comments sound like you have more of a preference for the box of popular contemporary conformity than freedom.
Okay, so you don’t understand the definition.
One thing to remember is that just because some ninnies in the podcast or journalism industry declare populism to be X, that doesn’t mean it is X.
Okay, I see your problem. “Populism” has nothing to do with “popularity.” It has to do with “populus.” The people.
You ignored the definitions I provided above, didn’t you?
Sadly, buying into the founding principles is not a requirement for either being or becoming an American. And while I agree that its far preferable for patriotism to be based in part on foundational, classical liberal principles, that is insufficient for both the functioning of a state and the maintenance of its institutions. You also need the rudimentary social cohesion that comes from the emotional identification with, and attachment to, other citizens to make it work, as well as a respect for path dependent (i.e. cultural traditions and norms revolving around context-specific conditions) means of arriving at classical liberal, as well as utilitarian, ends.
There are populist “elements” in virtually everything. few things are completely bereft of any support from “common people.”
At present, education and income are the most common differentiators. Whether a more educated or better paid person is better is entirely subjective.
Peace? Where?
Keystone has been halted again.
When will production on those federal lands commence?
I have a preference for conservatism.
I most certainly do.
How do you distinguish what is popular from what has support of the people?