Posted on 11/09/2025 1:16:18 PM PST by TBP
How come Republicans hare it?
Populism is not conservatism, and this is not a good article.
Because Republicans are weak. Not all Republicans, as you know, are Conservatives.
Of course, there are NO Conservatives on the OTHER side, so...you takes what you can gets.
Populism isn’t conservatism is a major part of his point.
Not sure who Capt. Kirk is, but I think the Kirk in question is Russell.
What neocons?
You mean like the ones Trump endorses?
“How is that “becoming like them”? We want good trade agreements that benefit both sides. But that’s not what you get with globalist organizations like the WTO.”
Then why did you suggest it was???
Yeah. that works too.
The genius of the communists is their gift with language. They create word constructs that frame republicans negatively. Republicans immediately accept the new frame and then struggle inside the frame. the communists don’t have to do anything but watch and work to construct a new frame to tie up republicans.
What a moronic stament, especially considering that I have never heard anyone claim that populism was conservaive.
In fact, the Democrat Socailist have started a left wing of the popul;ism movement. Which onl y proves that popilism is not really the MAGA movement. It's a n America first ,ovement. A movement that places its citizens considerations about all other considerations. That might ne considered nationalistic, but just because it has gained popularity, does not make it a populist movement.
If one wants to call it a populist movement, than it must be considered a nationalistic populist movement, while the left's popuulism movement is an anit-nationalistic movement.
So, TBP, state which movement that you support. Only a nation united stands, a divivded nation falls, and the only united movement is the MAGA American First movement, period. All other movements desire to see this nation destroyed.
As usual, rlmorel unleashes a post that requires a proper concurrence (for the most part…we are all individuals after all).
Intellectual Conservatism (hereafter IC) hit its heyday in the Reagan Era. In essence, William F Buckley, Jr., Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman et al helped usher in demand for free markets, free minds, and a free society. In short, we had empirical evidence that All That Hoity-Toity stuff worked.
Then..well…Bush the Senior came to power. That lot seduced the people who prospered in the 80s, that barriers to entry was a great way to preserve their gains. Those in power rejected all those IC gains, and turned in their Milton Friedman Fan Club cards for regulated markets, Ivy League minds, and a controlled society.
Small wonder Bush lost to Clinton, who ushered in the Boomer Presidency. IC had a chance with Newt and the Contract With America, but they lost their nerve. The 2000 election was the closest ever, perhaps reflecting with perfect hindsight that America was offered a non-choice choice between the dumbest and smarmiest of the Boomer generation. IC was nowhere to be found.
With Dubya, however, we had some scary purges. Let’s roll some video tape:
Analysis: A mini-Tet offensive in Iraq? UPI ^ | 4/6/2004 | Arnaud de Borchgrave Posted on 4/7/2004, 7:08:52 PM by Cannoneer No. 4
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1113369/posts
Lurking 20 years ago, what struck me was an almost dogmatic sentiment of Bush and Iraq right, everyone else wrong. Sure, the quantity of analytical posts was higher (somewhat…more on that later) but I saw a lot more Zots back then. Parenthetically, I’ve seen TONS of FReeper confessionals since 2016 apologizing for reflexively defending Iraq and Bush, so going so far as to say that they wish they’d never voted for Dubya.
So….the economy craters in 2008, Obama presents a charismatic candidacy and McCain stabs Palin in the back. Government is back in fashion. IC is nowhere to be found until the Tea Party electro-shocks the movement back into vogue. It’s not Firing Line, but at least freedom is being discussed.
By 2012, we wanted a return to supply side economics, lower taxes, less regulation. What does the RNC give the renewed IC movement? Perhaps the worst candidacy couple in recent times: Willard and Eddie Munster. Hopes are dashed.
Then, this happened.
Trump GOP Candidacy Blows Up: Refuses to Rule Out Third Party Bid (Bushies “We’ve finally got him”) The Weekly Standard ^ | July 18, 2015 | Stephen F. Hayes Posted on 7/18/2015, 6:58:51 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3313652/posts
10 years ago, when Trump came down that escalator there were tons of anti-Trumpers. Even the old thread I posted, which was when Trump was the front runner (he didn’t catch fire until a speech in mid-July 2015) had a mix of pros and antis. If this had been a Bush thread in 2005, my guess is dissent wouldn’t have been tolerated. Many NeverTrumpers just left FR.
While Trump hardly ushered in a return to Reagan-levels of IC, at least IC cohabitates with Populism. Trump is the ONLY Republican Prez since Reagan where the spirit of the Man can coexist with IC.
Too cute. Cohabitation makes for a bad marriage. and, ge this: never marry a Hoity-Toity.
An in depth post. It was a somewhat difficult time for me in that respect.
Back then, I was in no way configured to view the Bush Administration in any light other than a positive one. The reason is mostly simple: With each news event, every speech, every military action taken, I immediately visualized the alternative of a nation being run by the likes of Gore and Kerry.
In addition, I had grown up in a Navy family (and served as well) and had a built-in deference to authority, especially military. I can’t change that, just how I was. It didn’t cause me as much of an issue with any other politician as it did with McCain.
I had served in his squadron he flew in when he was shot down (VA-46) and had served in a Navy RAG squadron for a month or two when I came out of Jet School in Memphis. He was my commanding officer, and I had occasionally, as a Plane Captain trainee, been his Plane Captain. I could not criticize him. Just my upbringing.
I am very grateful to some wise and considerate Freeper who sent me some private messages, telling me that he understood all that, but I had to look at him as a politician without that consideration, or I would be making a mistake.
But he did it so gently and carefully, that I was able to consider it. Normally, I am a bit of a hothead, and I can dig my heels in before I have a reason to do so, and will dig them in even if there is no reason at all. I am simply hot-headed and stubborn, a bad combination.
But he was right, and I was able to step out of that. I do feel anger now when I consider him, and I will leave it at that.
And I think, for me, it was like the crumbling of a dam, because I surely don’t subscribe to those outlooks now.
That said, I don’t regret my vote for Bush as I pointed out above, I only had to think of the alternative and feel justified.
I still do feel justified, but I also take into account that there is an element of moral corrosion that goes along with choosing the “lesser of two evils”, the reason being that in supporting people who align with hostile values, one gives them credibility.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-cohabitation-still-linked-to-greater-odds-of-divorce
Rosenfeld and Roesler also showed something new in their 2018 study: cohabitation before marriage was associated with a lower risk of divorce in the first year of marriage but a higher risk thereafter.
We are in the honeymoon period. It’ll eventually end. The big question will be be who gets the kidz.
That guy sure likes to hear himself talk gibberish.
Then again, maybe it does. Or, maybe it would be nice if we weren't so selfish.
Human nature mistakes selfishness as self-interest. Even though rational self-interest tempers the tyranny of the social group, it will not efface the spiritual root of amor sui (love of self) as superbia (pride) against God.
Eric Voeglin: accept unlimited superbia as an ineradicable part of human nature and devise political institutions that will either suppress its drive by absolute force, as in the Hobbesian Leviathan, or let the individual drives balance each other, as did Locke, Hamilton, and Madison. This latter system has achieved considerable practical importance in politics because it works quite well as long as there are human and natural resources to be exploited so that there is enough to go around for satisfying the “democracy of cupidity” — as this system recently has been characterized. -linky
Many people have Dubya regrets. For others…well..20 years plus later, the thought of President Gore handling 9/11 is frightening. And President Lurch is equally scary.
Eventually the IC and Populist coalition will end. I’m just happy IC is in the mix again.
Yes. I think that was covered in post number 1 to which I was responding.
Is a concern over illegal immigration conservatism? Populism? Both? Does it matter what pigeonhole you use?
A good point. Meanwhile communists are never on the defensive. Their theory is bad theory. Their results are horrific. Yet they are on the attack.
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.