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.
Whither American conservatism is the question on everyone’s mind these days. Recently I gave a short talk about this topic with the central thought that the American conservative movement was now entering a distinct third phase of its modern existence, though I took the opportunity to say a few words about my first mentor, the late M. Stanton Evans, and what can be learned from his disposition, which was ahead of its time in many ways.
So yes, it does meant that the guest for this week’s episode is me, for which I apologize, though I hope you will enjoy my rendition of some of Stan Evans’s greatest hits—and also his timeless insights into the nature of “The Swamp” that is Washington DC, a phrase I think he may have been one of the first to use nearly 50 years ago. At least this is a short episode!
Subscribe to Power Line in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Published in: History
This is an insightful and powerful lecture. We owe it to ourselves to understand exactly where the left and right are in this current political climate. I recommend this to all conservative-minded people who need help appreciating what exactly is happening now that we have entered phase three….
@Jdetente On a round trip from Monterey to wine tasting in Paso Robles 4 of us regaled ourselves by coming up with every stupid, counter-productive and/or downright destructive political idea we could think of over the past 100 or so years and realized that very, very close to 100% originate from….(wait for it) The LEFT!
Steven,
I enjoy your PowerLine podcasts, but think you are way out on a limb here. I too thought M. Stanton Evans was one of the stars of the American Conservatism resurgence. I read every one of his books growing up as they came out and found him very insightful. I find it hard to believe he would find Donald Trump favorably disposed as the leader of a Conservatism Phase 3. He would never sponsor someone who was totally ignorant of the Constitution and American History as Trump is. Trump would have simply been the source of many Evans’ witticisms. The efforts of Michael Anton and the Claremont Institute to remake President Trump as a conservative are futile. He is a New York City liberal who was not accepted into Manhattan society and never supported conservative causes. Initially, he entered the 2016 Republican Primaries in order to improve his brand. When he was surprisingly elected he realized he’d have to play a different role. He has few major beliefs: the world and America’s allies have been unfairly taking advantage of America for decades; free trade impoverishes the average working person and tariffs and mercantilisms must be implemented to prevent this; and America should not act as a police force but should avoid all foreign entanglements unless it results in America being compensated in some way (“Saudi Arabia will pay for the several thousand troops transferred from Syria to Saudi Arabia”.) The implication is that the American military is a mercenary force. This is not true and an insult to their dedication and sacrifice. In addition, he has no fiscal discipline and continues to fund larger government with uncontrolled spending. No conservative believes that larger government means more freedom and less personal involvement in our everyday lives. He is not “draining the swamp”, he is adapting to it. He ran a successful family owned business, and is trying to govern the way he ran that business.
I don’t think that the ascendancy of George W. to the presidency was the beginning of Conservatism Phase 2. George W. was a very loyal disciple of his father George H. W. who was not a conservative. H. W. was simply a reversion to Nelson Rockefeller Republicanism. I was disappointed when Reagan chose H. W. as his vice president. I understood why he did it, but I wanted very much for him to choose Jack Kemp. W. followed his father’s lead. it’s true that when the Soviet Union collapsed, the primary glue for the conservative movement which was anti-communism championed by Wm. F. Buckley was dissolved, and no other primary policy took its place. But W. had the disadvantage of having New York City attacked by Islamist militants and destroying the Twin Towers. So the promise of a Conservatism Phase 2 never happened as it tried unsuccessfully to deal with this new threat but could not separate the politics of the Islamist from its religion’s ideology.
I am very much looking forward to your biography of M. Stanton Evans.
I agree that both left and right should understand where they stand in the current political debate. But I don’t think the left opposes President Trump because of where he stands. They oppose him simply because he won the 2016 election for president. The left believed that President Obama brought a new matrix into politics. The diversity of the voting public and its growth would ensure that the left would have a permanently winning candidate as a presidential candidate and its legislative candidates. As a result, they could successfully remake their view of how American should work. They thought that Hillary Clinton would be a continuation of the Obama Administration. The left simply cannot accept the results of her incompetent campaign and wants to overturn it by any means necessary. Conservatism is a collection of ideas that have been championed for hundreds of years as to how the world really works. The left is not opposing those ideas, it is opposing President Trump.
I specifically did not mention Trump in my comment because he is merely a transitional figure with a singular personality and approach. The left would have opposed any Republican that won because they do oppose the ideas of the party. One has to merely look back to the way they treated GW Bush, McCain, and Romney. Also, I still remember all of the consternation about Pence, Jeff Sessions and others…because the left was afraid of the ideas they brought to the table and the influence they would have on Trump and the office. So I have to disagree. The left is opposing both conservative ideas and Trump.
I do believe, however, that Trump drives them especially crazy because he is brazen and shameless and is more than happy to kick their teeth in when necessary. I personally would not want a carbon copy of Trump…but the future of any conservative-minded politician requires a willingness to get in the mud with the opposition. Just my two cents.
@alkennedy — “He is a New York City liberal who was not accepted into Manhattan society and never supported conservative causes. Initially, he entered the 2016 Republican Primaries in order to improve his brand. When he was surprisingly elected he realized he’d have to play a different role.”
Let me get this straight. Donald Trump is a “New York City liberal” who ran for President “in order to improve his brand.”
By taking positions that would enrage New York City liberals, and (as Forbes has documented) damage his brand among the elites who are his core customers, reducing his net worth by over $1 billion?
I opposed Trump in 2016, believing his campaign promises insincere. The difference between you and me is that I’ve been paying attention to what he’s been doing for the past three years, while your mind is still in 2016.
At great personal risk — Trump’s opponents don’t just want to defeat him, they want to put him and his children in jail — he has implemented policies consistent with his promises: immigration control, tax reduction, regulatory reform, reinvigorating Constitutional jurisprudence, and a modest leaning toward Old Right noninterventionism in foreign policy.
I’m sure the other “New York City liberals” consider Donald Trump a traitor to their class.
Why is this even debatable?
The media is the enemy. They all use Alinsky tactics reflexively. They own the education system. It’s idiotic to not act accordingly.
This is all true. The thing is he can’t change spending because every president has to get past the asset bubbles created by the Fed. If the asset bubble pops, you don’t get reelected.
If every Fed president was like Paul Volker it wouldn’t be an issue.
Janet Yellen should have been raising rates like crazy after 2011, but Valerie Jarrett wouldn’t let her.
Now it’s Trump’s turn to grow the bubble.
Who did this? Tell me.
link
Podcast interiveiw
Agree…but there are still many that deny this truth.
@alkennedy — “America should not act as a police force but should avoid all foreign entanglements unless it results in America being compensated in some way (‘Saudi Arabia will pay for the several thousand troops transferred from Syria to Saudi Arabia.) The implication is that the American military is a mercenary force. This is not true and an insult to their dedication and sacrifice.”
Presidents before Trump: “Please please let us be the world’s policeman, please. We’ll pay you for the privilege!”
Trump: “You want us to be the world’s policeman? Only if you cover some of our expenses.”
N.B.: Al will be shocked to learn that in our “volunteer” military, people earn pay and benefits. I guess that makes them all “mercenaries”.
The fact that our volunteer military gets paid does not make them mercenaries. They are paid by the taxpayers to defend the United States and they do an outstanding job of it.
Which prior presidents said: “Please please let us be the world’s policeman, please. We’ll pay you for the privilege!”? I must have missed those speeches or briefings.
That’s my dramatic interpretation of the tables that show only a handful of NATO countries (mostly small countries facing Russia) meet the requirement to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, while the vast majority (including wealthy Germany, France and Canada) spend less than that, usually much less.
See: https://www.statista.com/chart/17529/nato-defense-spending/
In addition, the US is subsidizing anti-terrorism and anti-drug efforts in scores of countries, in addition to sending our people to put their lives on the line.
To the limited extent that there is law and order in the world, we are it. Traditionally, our only repayment from those we protect is insults and abuse. If Trump twists arms so that those countries pay part of the cost, more power to him.