Posted on 09/03/2015 5:49:40 PM PDT by LS
In our election discussions I have been arguing that the rise of Trump reflects a de-emphasis in traditional ideological issues. Trump, as we all know, is hardly an issue-by-issue conservative. I have argued that he transcends many specific conservative positions by his love of America, a nationalistic pride, a commitment to saving our borders, and a kind of TR -type bluster. I think even most of his opponents would give him this much,
I have pointed to the decline of ideology, but haven't really thought about how it occurred. And the answer lies---as with the answer to most our complaints---with the Republicans. It began in 2008 with the McCain race. We have all heard that McCain tried to run on positions but stay away from attacking Obama. We all saw this as a political error, but as it turns out it was a cultural shift within the political system.
McCain's unwillingness to attack Obama personally disassociated the man from his policies. Worse though, it separated the policies from their historical and ideological foundations. McCain not only had to show that Obama's policies were "bad" but that they were bad because they were Marxist and INHERENTLY destructive.
Thus, when the GOP finally got the House two years later, they were already locked into the "bad policies" framework. It was too late to go back and re-lay a foundation. Two years after that, Romney merely repeated the McCain policies strategy, with the same result.
This explains, I think, the disconnect between the "wrong track" polls and Obama's reelection: without the grounding of why the policies were destructive, all many voters had to go on was emotion or feelings, and many did not want the first black president to fail. They had not been educated ad to what it was critical for the health of the Republic THAT he fail.
Trump is the anti-Obama, not in the sense of an ideological opposite---because we've had eight years of brow beating by intellectual elites that we couldn't go there, couldn't look at Obama's youth, couldn't question his education, because in the end these were all "code words" for racism. Ideology was, if not dead, laying in the morgue.
Suddenly, GOP pundits are frantic to revive ideology---not because they really mean it, but because it gives them a club to beat Trump with. Meanwhile Trump has superseded ideology in the precisely opposite way Obama did. Trump stays in the higher rhetoric of debate, "making America great," "building the wall," etc. This also explains why the more ideologically precise Ted Cruz hasn't gotten traction. The vocabulary has changed. Cruz is speaking pre-Obama, Trump, post.
Conservative ideology includes constitutional superiority, the rule of law and the preservation of all of the Bill of Rights, free market capitalism with minimal regulation. I don’t see Trump holding to these principals due to his past positions. He is not going to trim the Devils out of the bureaucracy and return a competitive business environment.
Basically your argument boils down to: we can’t beat the Democrats so we have to surrender and join them. See where that philosophy gets you.
How is Trump to anti-Obama? They are both narcissistic, community organizers, and we’re supposed to ignore their past and vote for them. No more unvetted candidates!
The entire world is going to hell in a hand basket — and now what used to be America is gracing along with it.
At this point, it is impossible to care if the entire shebang — goes out with a bang.
The bigger the bang the better.
I have pointed to the decline of ideology, but haven’t really thought about how it occurred.
++++
Surely you are not referring here to the Marxists whose ideology now defines the Democrat Party. I see no decline there. Quite the opposite. What we are now seeing is a solidifying of Leftist Philosophy led by our Muslim-Marxist President masquerading as an American.
Now if you are referring to the Republican side you can make a pretty strong argument given the mushy-headed leadership currently in charge of the GOP.
Larry:
You are correct...in fact, brilliant. I love Ted Cruz, but he is, in a sense, Trumped.
I post never and comment rarely.
As a constitutional conservative I must say that Trump, for better or worse, is perhaps the last, best hope. Freepers may jump on me for this, but the American dream hangs by a thread. So much so, that I am now a full bore, 12 gauge buckshot prepper.
Still, we must take our best shot. Go Trump (flawed as you are), Go!
Thank you Larry!
Shalom
I think you’re on the right track here with this line of thinking.
I know for myself, prior to 0b0la’s terms in office, I never could have even considered voting for Donald Trump. After the past 7+ years, this country needs a demolition man to clear away the wreckage of the marxist muslim before we can even begin to restore the Republic. Before the Republic can be restored, the uniparty must be destroyed and Donald Trump is the only one who is willing and is capable of destroying it.
From the time he was elected to the senate from Texas, I’ve admired Ted Cruz and thought that he’d be a fine president but I don’t think he’s what the country needs at this time.
I feel the same way. I want Ted Cruz, but if it’s Trump, I pull the lever. The only Republican I refuse to vote for is El Jebbay. I’ll stay home, then.
Looks like Trump supporters in the base are merely doing what the GOPe has been demanding of them for decades: stop with your holier-than-thou litmus tests.
Only the GOPe didn't anticipate the base's support for a rogue candidate outside of GOPe anointing.
No wonder the entertainment factor is off the charts.
That is interesting analysis. While there is doubtless truth in it, Trump’s support has a more basic explanation. The country is bring overrun. Ordinary people, even LIVs, can see that we have no control over our border. Chaos and lawlessness take an incalculable toll on people and a country. Trump was the first to explicitly detail the horrors the illegal throng is inflicting on US citizens. He has based his campaign on fixing the problem.
This is an election about survival. It is also a backlash against the Permanent Political Class that brought this life-threatening crisis on us. Fed up people gave Trump the lead, and it is still expanding.
Very Interesting post LS.
The GOP knows how to pull our 'ideological' strings while refusing to do anything to un-rig the game they and the libs have set up..
Besides pointing out that even ideologically speaking the GOP has let us down time after time, Trumps reminds us that if we do not address some very practical realities NOW we can debate ideology 'till we're blue in the face and it won't matter - all will have been taken away from us in the meantime.
The fork in the road has been reached. I hope we're ready to finally take the correct path.
This is what Rush was struggling to put into words yesterday and today.
You’ve done it very nicely here.
Patriot High-Five ~
Well stated.
I’m for Trump because I’m against the GOP elites who have betrayed the conservative base time and again, have openly ridiculed and attacked us, who have rigged the system to favor incumbency even over the survival of the country.
Interesting. I suggest Trump does well because he was the first to brazenly fight PC and the libtards. And he did so in a likable humorous way. Ted is brilliant and doing fine but does not have Trumps presence and polish. I believe Ted will be the nominee. Issues, policies, and positions are all important and reassert themselves as the campaigns move along, but right now we are so happy to see someone able and willing to beat the snot out of the Dim B@stards and their media propagandists, that we are all just basking in the experience. It has been a long time coming.
Really excellent points. If the GOPe does two things well, they are 1, feather their own D.C. cartel nests, and 2, rig primaries. The result, Dole, McCain, and Romney. Jeb was to slide in on greased skids this go round.
Then along came Trump. The panic in GOPe-world must be seismic. Bet McConnell hasn’t been wearing his typically smug, self-satisfactied look lately. Then there’s Boehner, publicly calling Cruz a jackass. I’d call that evidence of stress.
I hope, once the primaries are decided, the two of them feel as if their world has been turned upside down. They will finally have a glimmer of what their Obama-enabling shenanigans have been like for us.
OUTSTANDING observation, LS. Thanks.
I posted the following moments ago on another thread…
Zero representation. Culture destroyers, border detroyers. The socialist/totalitarian ideologies of the enemies within are never questioned. There is no pushback. HOORAY Clare Lopez. Have you any allies? Soap box BUMP! Up soon…ballot box.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3332832/posts
Tremendous analysis of Trump’s popularity.
"McCain's unwillingness to attack Obama personally disassociated the man from his policies. Worse though, it separated the policies from their historical and ideological foundations. McCain not only had to show that Obama's policies were "bad" but that they were bad because they were Marxist and INHERENTLY destructive."
Reagan was the last Republican leader who clearly articulated for the citizenry the association between "policies" and "their historical and ideological foundations."
Your statement reminds us that for a few decades now, "We, the People," have allowed the political class to focus attention on issues, not principles, forgetting that "Ideas have consequences," and that America's founding ideas produced a season of for liberty, opportunity, creativity, and productivity the world had not seen.
What America needs now is a principles-oriented debate about "who we are," which seems to have been the Administration's tag line in defense of its often extra-Constitutional actions, and an honest argument based on the firm foundation provided by our Declaration of Independence and the resulting Constitution's limits on government power.
Might we add that there are few issues (topics) which can be adequately "debated" with the left, for the "ideology" of the "progressives" is based on counterfeit ideas gleaned from their "favorite philosophers"--Mao, Marx, Lenin, Keynes, et al--not on essential principles of liberty, as understood, declared, and implemented by America's founding generation.
For instance, the so-called "progressives'" claim of higher ground in arguing for redistribution of wealth sounds moral and good, but it overlooks historical evidence, facts, and the unintended consequences of such a policy in every country where it has been tried.
Debating the "issue" of "taxing the rich" to "help" the poor generally is a losing argument for conservatives, because they don't (or can't) articulate and defend the underlying principle and historical facts.
Yet, those who profess to be "conservatives" continue to waste their energies arguing on issues, like "cutting taxes," "cutting spending," and other meaningless terms they have memorized without adequate principled defense. As a result, they come off appearing to be selfish and uncaring, lacking the "moral" high ground.
To win such debates in the minds of voters, there must be a rediscovery of and passion for the underlying principles of America's founding documents, as explained in the writings of America's founding generation, the Federalist Papers, and speeches of the period.
Those documents speak of liberty as the prize above all others.
Before the counterfeit ideas of Mao and Marx have completely turned off the light of liberty in America, some brave men and women must immerse themselves in the principles which changed the world in 1776 and 1787 and resulted in millions of our ancestors fleeing nations which practiced the tyrannical ideas of government-over-people the progressives now cherish.
Such a debate would force the pretenders to defend their bankrupt ideas, thus exposing their real agenda--coercive power and control.
BTTT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.