Is Trumpism supplanting Reaganism?

Conservativeintel ^ | Sep 7, 2015 | David Freddoso

[spintreebob]

can conservatives prevent Trumpism from eclipsing and dismantling the Reagan coalition?

This is going to be a very important question going forward. Democrats are experiencing turmoil in their own primary at the moment — as we have been predicting here, Bernie Sanders is catching fire and Hillary Clinton is drowning in her own sins. The Republicans’ nominee could well be the next president. Will they nominate a movement conservative, or will they nominate Trump?

Read more at http://conservativeintel.com/2015/09/07/the-briefing-vol-iii-issue-28/

[Paladin2]

So true. Someone is on their game....

[tennmountainman]

Where exactly is this rare “Reaganism” in the house and senate?

We have not seen Reaganism, since Reagan.

[867V309]

Amateurish.

[LS]

I like Mark Steyn's take on all this. GOP hoist up Ron, pay homage to him, "yearn" for a new Reagan---but they really don't want a Reagan or anyone like him. The first thing RR did when he was briefed on the exec orders Carter left was to send the binder back with the note, "vacate all of these."

Reagan was Reagan, Trump is Trump. I would be very, very happy with a President Trump who did 3-4 of the main things he said he would do---seal the border, build up the military, smash ISIS, demand fairer trade deals with our trading partners. (I'm a free trade guy, but it is not free trade if your "partner" won't let your products on shelves).

Freddoso did a final edit of my book, "A Patriot's History of the United States." He's a bright guy, but a total Trump hater, as are most of the "Conservatives" at NRO and on Twitter.

Like Steyn said, they constantly bash certain guys (like Trump) for not being "conservative enough," yet the guys that they say we need to follow-McConnell and Boehner and Bush---are the ultimate of NON-conservatism. Enough with the purity tests. Let's get someone in who actually achieves some things---in this case, things I happen to agree with.

[LS]

I find that nonsense. I hang out with PH Ds. Several like Trump. They aren't "low information." All the professionals I know like Trump as either their first, or second candidate.

I can find very few "educated voters" who like Cruz. The reason is, he's viewed as part of the "establishment" i.e., Washington. Even when he (sometimes) votes against the "establishment," he has been so far unable to build a coalition to lead. He didn't try to stop the Corker bill, voting for it (yes, I've heard his reasons). His shutdown attempt attracted ONE GUY (Lee). So if you propose to be a conservative leader, you darn sure better be able to at least get conservatives like Sessions (and, more recently) Tim Scott, and Jodi Ernst, and one would hope Rand Paul and others, to follow.

[Pelham]

"They are often low information and emotional while the ideological are intellectual."

Hey, bob, don't break your arm while you're patting yourself on the back.

I tend to recall from my low information reading that Russell Kirk famously pointed out that conservatism is the antithesis of ideology so there's going to be a few conservatives who will have a problem with your ideological litmus test in the first place.

Located among the old Reagan voters are those of us who don't see the perfect as the enemy of the good. And considering the record of two-faced double-dealing we have gotten from GOP approved 'conservatives' in the years since Reagan left office I'm more than willing to give an imperfect patriot like Trump a chance.

With any luck he will wreak havoc on both the Obama Democrats and their evil collaborators within the GOP establishment.

[spintreebob]

Reagan and all Republicans/conservatives (except Pat Buchanan) held the Wall Street Journal position on immigration pre-2002. That includes Rush, Levin, Hannity, Daddy Bush, Dubya, Pat Robertson, Ron Paul, Newt, Heritage, CATO,and on and on.

Historically labor unions were tough on immigration pre-2002 and based their position on Malthus-Guttmacher.

Historically Republicans and conservatives of all stripes rejected Malthus-Guttmacher pre-2002 (except Pat Buchanan).

[Lazamataz]

I shall read, and I shall learn, and I thank you.

[LS]

It's not the mouth over the brain. I'm beating a dead horse here. Cruz is viewed as part of the problem. Go to the first debate when he would say (as did Rubio) "I introduced legislation . . ." NO!! That's the kiss of death. That smacks of introducing stuff knowing it won't work. Trump says, "I built this building and I can build a fence." Much different. And that's not talk. He has a real estate empire that HE made and billions of dollars that HE earned, and that's viewed quite differently from all the garbage that goes on in DC.

And believe me, I'm understanding and sympathetic to how the Senate and House work---but they haven't worked (the way they were supposed to) since 2006. The Dems ran the house like a house of nobles, the Republicans like a house of cowards. Neither works.

[plain talk]

Like I said ... the mouth vs the brain. :-)

[tennmountainman]

Of course there are individuals who carry on Reagans ideas.

But, in terms of Governing on Reagan principals in the House, Senate
and rare occupation of the Presidency, Reaganism died when Reagan
left office. That is a fact.

[Talisker]

The American people are so fed up they are willing to go with the guy who looks like he's going to fight — They haven't looked into policy just who has the most fire in the belly.

This.

[DoughtyOne]

There is no question that Reagan ran for president twice and won on the platform of immigration amnesty.

Reagan did not run on a platform of immigration amnesty in 1980 or 1984.  The immration bill was something he didn't ram through.  He felt that immigration had gotten out of control, and needed to be reigned in.  He did not run with that as an issue.  He did not favor amnesty.

Reagan aquiesced to the call for amnesty.  He agreed to the amnesty, for two reasons.  One, he wanted to put more teeth into immigration enforcement.  Two, the only way he could do that, was to agree to the amnesty.  Being told there were only one million illegals in country, he bought off on it.  New stricter enforcment regulations were enacted.  This included employer fines, and strict enforcement both at the border and inland.

The bill was passed.  3.5 million illegals came forward.  Subsequent presidents and Congress refused to enforce the new stricter policies.

Some folks still buy into the idea that was Reagan's amnesty.  It wasn't.  The legislation was passed and he signed it.  He was wrong to do so.  At the time I knew it was a big mistake.  

This was not something he felt any need to hide. He declared his support for an amnesty (using that exact word) in the same 1984 presidential debate in which he famously joked about former Vice President Walter Mondale’s “youth and inexperience.”

He did agree to support it.  That does not mean he campaigned on it.  He agreed to support it, but he didn't go from campaign stop to campaign stop hawking amnesty.  Those that accuse him of this are simply running cover for their favorite guy demanding amnesty today.  I'll guarantee you one thing, Reagan having seen the fiasco of the 1986 immigration bill and it's aftermath would NEVER agree to another one.

One million vs thirty million is just one of the reasons why.

Reagan’s support for Amnesty did nothing to stop his winning the wholehearted support of the Reagan coalition in two consecutive elections. (The myth that he regretted the eventual 1986 amnesty dies hard, although the fact that it wasn’t well executed is widely accepted.)

Duh!  Ya think?  It would be a little hard for Reagan to express regret when the refusal to implement that bill's policies didn't come until after his term in office.  

THIS WAS NOT THE REAGAN AMNESTY.  This bill was put forth as the Simpson/Mazoli bill.  Reagan signed the bill.  He didn't not submit it.  It's tenets came forth from an immigration reform committe.

This is referenced as the Reagan Amensty so folks can point to him and say, "Reagan pushed the last one in 1986."  Horse stuff

This guy may not be award of it, but there is a lot of propaganda in this article.

[DoughtyOne]

Meant to send post 34 to all.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3334100/posts?page=34#34

[painter]

Reagan coalition=Tea Party

[DaveyB]

I'm understanding and sympathetic to how the Senate and House work-

You seem to be saying that Cruz is out because he is working in the senate, the only viable candidate has no experience with the Federal government?

[Paladin2]

Cruz is the closest thing we have to a “real” conservative. Should the Trump celebrety continue, the best hope is that Cruz will be on his shoulder talking sense into his ear.

[Forgotten Amendments]

You actually know what you’re talking about. Prepare to be flamed. :(

[Jim Noble]

Burn, baby burn.

Burn that mother down.