We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, May 25. 2016
Many others around the intertubes have been saying what I have been saying: The Republican Party is not a Conservative Party, just the more conservative party.
Conservatives are a faction, and libertarian/conservatives like me are a sub-faction.
In the US, parties are designed to compete in elections and nothing more. Hard-core Conservatives do not win national elections. From today, A right-wing revolt against Trump? Dream on. Conservatives never truly spoke for the Republican Party rank-and-file. Sad maybe, but true. (link fixed)
This lady is posturing as a principled heroine, but she is just naive: Portraits in Countermoonbattery: Katrina Elaine Jorgensen
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
In some ways Trump is more conservative than Reagan, who jump started the Fed's finger into education and played around with over-throwing dictators. Trump's outline to date turns healthcare back to the individual as much as possible (Medicare and Medicaid might need to stay with some modification for graft), education back to local governments, and he chops at over-regulation. His criticism of NATO and the U.N. is warranted. No way a third-world country is going to tell me how to live my life when they can't manage their own countries. Where and when did we citizens vote to be at the beck and call of every banana republic whose policies only benefit their dictators?
My prayers that Trump can seriously pare back this out-of-control government and make the states and local pols take responsibility for their own errors of judgment. Now, nobody knows what's going on or where to start to get anything done. Thus, nothing gets done.
The major purpose of current government is to create opportunities and mechanisms for graft. Our current economic system is misnamed "crony capitalism" when government power is used to give money to friends, relatives, and donors. It should be renamed "crony socialism" instead, because it is government-enforced, top-down economic system.
I agree with your first three sentences. I realize I am more political and more libertarian than the average republican voter.
But the author for the first link doesn't know what he's talking about. For examples, conservatives are not purists when it comes to the free market, nor are they anti-government. Has Paul Ryan ever voted or acted on conservative principles? And conservatives are always in opposition to the "progressive egalitarianism" in our own party, forget the dems. And if almost 20% want an all out ban on abortions, how many more just want to bring common sense and common decency to the table?
To mention the decay in the quality of education and understanding of our founding principles would require more than a comment space on a blog. It's a major reason so many people (many not republicans, too) voted for Trump in the primary. A lot of conservative voters think Trump believes the same things they do. A lot of people don't realize just how radical concepts such as social security and raising taxes on the wealthy are. Fewer know anything about the consequences of strong import tariffs or why jobs migrate to other countries.
I do plan on voting for Trump, by the way. He's just not my first choice. He wasn't even my 16th choice.
The Trump appeal is not based on nuance of different brands of conservatism It is a preference cascade based on shared recognition that our government has been completely taken over by crooks who have no fiduciary responsibility. Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club accurately describes the Trump (and Sander’s) appeal as voting “NO”. “Pure conservatism” is irrelevant when both parties and their government agencies are corrupt. You mention Paul Ryan, who passes bloated budgets. Watch the "leadeship" and their families get rich on meager salaries. People know we now have a government built to receive bribes for grants/contracts, passage of laws/regulations that harm regular “unconnected” citizens, or appointed jobs giving money out to your friends. The GOP just voted more funding than even Obama requested. The “Earmark Factory” is still alive and well.
People sense the end of the US and even western civilization as a result of bad crooked government along the lines of Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government or the more generalized The Collapse of Complex Societies).
Regular people know that crooked politicians make their donors wealthy while they borrow trillions, and themselves become wealthy on government salaries. The only hope for honest “unconnected” people is to “throw the bums out”. Even if Trump or Sanders are crooks, at least the old crooks might be removed from their “connectedness” and be subject to the bad and overbearing government their regulations and crony socialism have created. Maybe Trump or Sanders will appoint an honest Attorney General to prosecute treason (accepting bribes as Secretary of State to protect mining interests or sale of uranium to Russia) and corruption)? Even if there is only a 1% chance that Trump would shut down most of the so-called Education Department, that is better than nothing. Even if there is only a 1% chance that federal funding to universities should go to US citizens for gainful employment, rather than training destructive SJWs and foreign nationals to go back home to compete, that is better than zero. Maybe Trump can close our borders to terrorists and cultures that hate US and swell our welfare expenses and overload local schools.
On the positive side, maybe Trump can make Lobbyists have to find a real job and work for a living.
To clarify, the author mentioned Paul Ryan as an example of a conservative elite. I gave my opinion that he is not a conservative. He's of the group of politicians that you correctly describe.
I would disagree with your reply in two small ways. One, I have no hope in Sanders ever doing the right thing. And two, the only hope in the future isn't simply throwing the bums out, but sticking to the constitution. And that is what I consider to be the foundation of the conservative movement within the republican/libertarian parties.
As for Trump, I don't think he considers the constitution. That doesn't mean that everything he will do will harm the country or the future. If the only thing he does is keep his word on the border and immigration reform then I think it will be worth holding my nose and voting. According to his own speeches he will increase the authority of the federal government and hurt the economy with tariffs and higher taxes on the wealthy.
Jack, I am agreeing with Ryan being part of the problem. If Ryan continues being an enabler of government-for-sale, perhaps an unrealizable fantasy to hope for is that Trump and Bernie voters together could unseat him in the general election.
The recent announcements of superdelegates for Trump, such as Oklahoma GOP chairwoman Pam Pollard, recognizes the possibility of a broad preference cascade. She admits:
"I think he has touched a part of our electorate that doesn't like where our country is."
Your commitment to "the Constitution" is somewhat puzzling. I took Con Law years ago from a very prominent Con Law scholar. What was remarkable is the plasticity of reading the plain words increasingly distorted over time to mean more govenrnent power, when its basic premise was to limit the power of the federal government over citizens and States. Much/most of this distortion is the result of crazypants expansion of the commerce clause beyond any rational meaning of its wording or intent. Does your support for "the Constitution" extend to federally-enforced monopolies to grow peanuts, or preventing a farmer from feeding his own herd, or the truly enormous Code of Federal regulations that control in-state commerce and everything else?
The "elite" are now concerned Trump would not follow the Constitution, but have no such concern about FDR or Obama. It would be enjoyable to hear their pious fake-umbrage claiming support for that "outmoded 100 year-old document" if Trump were to stop their gravy train and mock their self-presumed authority.
We have crooked tariffs now to protect certain unions. Why shouldn't more honest tariffs to protect against foreign government concerted action to destroy components of our economy be OK? Tariffs of course were the main source of federal income in the original Constitution. Until a "very small" 0.25 %(?) income tax was grafted onto it, along with the privately-owned and operated "federal Reserve". Is a secret Federal Reserve bank part of the Constitution you are concerned Trump might interfere with?
Many of "the rich" you don't want to tax got that way by government largess and corruption, refusal to put financial manipulators in jail, paid avoidance of antitrust laws, etc. Very few "rich" are getting that way now by hard work or merit in our new top-down crony socialist economy. Forget to pay lobbyists and politicians (eg, early microsoft) and the government attacks. Pay up and get rich while your competitors are attacked by government over regulations written by crooked lobbyists and their rich clients. Special non-enforcement of antitrust laws to create giant propaganda news organizations favoring the crooked government "outfit". Letting crooked bankers who destroyed the economy avoid jail if they give billions to antiamerican political groups favoring the overthrow of the governments of Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico like La Raza ("the Race"). Would you oppose a 1500% tax on lobbying payments and bribes, as a tax on the rich?
People would only vote for Trump (or even Bernie) as an act of desperation. But the situation is desperate. I've considered writing in George Washington and John Adams or Thomas Jefferson on my November ballot, to see if my vote is even counted in my famously corrupt state. (If it is hard to identify my state from that information alone, that is a basis for Trump's support)
Who in the heck thought the likes of a Donald Trump would run against career politicians? I have followed him since about 1980 as I have worked for major real estate developers and was fascinated by the way he used the skills learned from his father, who built post-WWII suburban housing of moderate pricing, to enter the very risky mega-skyscaper market. Not many have the stomach for it…or last through so many different bubbles and crises that hound that economic segment.
We live in interesting times.
Good write-up, I¡¦m regular visitor of one¡¦s website, maintain within the excellent operate, and It is going for being a regular visitor for just a lengthy time.