What John Adams Knew -- Donald Trump: the populist demogogue John Adams anticipated

National Review ^ | 3-18-16 | Kevin Williamson

[Let's Roll]

Whenever I see democracy described as a mob, I always think of the French Revolution.

The one that had envy slaughtering people for being rich - if there was no actual crime to pin on them - and destroying their possessions - works of art, fine craftsmanship because the mob had no use for or didn’t appreciate those possessions or even because the “gib me dats” of the day just wanted everyone to have nothing. (Sound familiar?)

And finally and predictably this revolution for “freedom” ended in the installation of a dictator. Study it. It’s all available - for now anyway.

[BroJoeK]

SunkenCiv: "Oh looky, more meme-building! And when it doesn't work, the agitprop specialists will do a one-eighty and start claiming that the one-term POTUS John Adams was the *precursor* of Donald Trump: "

I like John Adams, a lot.
For one thing, he was important in getting George Washington appointed commander of the Continental Army, in 1775.
But Adams was defeated for reelection in 1801 by a somewhat more populist politician, Thomas Jefferson.
No need to rehearse that election, except to say that Jefferson was Trump to Adams' Cruz.

But it does seem to me that another Adams, his son John Quincy, at first defeated, but then was also defeated by the populist "Trump" of his day, Andrew Jackson.

So, we can say that when populism opposes constitutionalism, populism often wins.
Then, somehow, the Republic survives, so maybe we'll survive Trump too.
But not Hillary, God help us, not Hillary.

[Ohioan]

Do not believe that there is any inherent conflict between the Trump approach & the Cruz approach. It is very unfortunate, that a war has broken out between the two, rather than simply go on with both approaches, and letting the Republican voters choose between them.

The fact is that the two approaches perfectly complement each other. Trump appeals to patriots and all who love traditional American values--which absolutely include reverence for the Constitution. Cruz appeals to those who want a candidate better able to actually explain the Constitutional mandates--which are absolutely compatible with (indeed perfectly reflect) traditional American values.

While I now support Donald Trump, I certainly want to heal the unfortunate chasm between two camps, whose difference is really only a slightly different focus; both camps essential to an American future.

[SunkenCiv]

Adams got GW appointed, and before that defended the British soldiers from the Boston Massacre, and for both of those things did great service. As president, he did just one thing that was of immeasurable positive service -- followed George Washington. But there was a reason he was a one-termer, and it wasn't because Jefferson and his closest associate in that campaign, Madison, introduced US politics to the kind of underhanded campaining we take for granted today. Well, not *only* because of that.

During his eight years in office, Jefferson paid down the US debt while cutting spending and cutting taxes. And of course, thanks to him, the US bought half the continent, and let us know that "we are all Federalists, we are all Republicans." And like so many others, he was much more popular at the end of his first term than he was at the end of the second.

[Pelham]

Well said.

Of course, Kevin Williamson and his National Review comrades are little more than bitter partisans when it concerns Trump, so it’s not like they care if their reasoning is honest. They are counting on the mud they are throwing to stick and that’s all they care about.

[Smokin' Joe]

Thank you for your worthless contribution. Glad to see you like the Founders and value their opinions, too.

Of course you view it as pathetic trash. The Donald wasn't around for the Founders to worship, so naturally, to you they are full of sh*t.

[Mr. K]

He may be a ‘populist’ but it is only because BOTH PARTIES have lied to us for decades and we are sick of it.

It is not a derogatory term to be a ‘populist’ - at least no worse than being ‘ESTABLISHMENT’ -i.e. letting the same people keep doing the same things.

It is the ‘establisment’ that want us to look down on him as a ‘populist’

[ohioman]

Articles from the National Review (i.e. the GOPe mouthpiece) have the same amount of truth in them as Pravda circa 1978.

[dsc]

“and uses the passions of the mob (Trump, for example), it collapses and democracy becomes misrule”

Oh, so Freepers who support Trump are a mob; mindless, savage sans culottes rampaging through the streets looking for queens to behead. Very flattering.

I’ll bet your opinion of most of those Freepers was much higher until Trump, the essential deus ex machina, swung in from the wings to offer salvation from the irredeemably depraved and corrupt American political class.

You say such mean things about us now, but the problem is that you just don’t get it.

“As Adams said, “avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness...”

Yes, that describes Trump’s supporters to a T. Thanks again. And we know those things motivate Trump: avarice because he won’t rest until he makes a million bucks; ambition because he is clearly motivated to become a well-known public figure; we know he is vengeful because of the endless parade of his victims who have come forward to denounce him; and licentiousness clearly motivates him because he cannot possibly obtain the favors of members of the contrary gender until he attains high elective office.

I have my own reasons for reserving a degree of skepticism regarding Trump’s actual intentions should he be elected, but some people are just making stuff up.

In the final analysis, Trump is the only one who even *might* put the good of the country first. None of the loathsome political serpents in the race would even place it as high as fourth.

[i_robot73]

...vs Bathhouse Barry, whom vowed to fundamentally change the U.S.

Or the ‘elect US and we’ll balance the budget, STOP executive amnesty, DE-FUND PP, SECURE our Southern border...’

So, do I believe those that were supported/elected to do one thing but did another, or a successful (biz) man, who’s actually PRODUCED, whom said he’s take a wrecking ball to the whole stinking lot of ‘em??

Damn, that’s some tough choice. /s

[ELS]

Fixing your link:
Trump: Living Metaphor For American Conservatism

[21twelve]

I had to look it up:

“...’mens sine affectu.’ [mind without passion] The Trump movement is light on the mens, being almost entirely affectu.”

[MayflowerMadam]

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

Start with "avarice", as it pertains to Ted Cruz. It is defined as "extreme greed for wealth or material gain."

SYNONYMS: Greediness (He makes a good salary. Wifey makes ~$750K/year. It's still not enough. So he cheats his church out of tithes.)

Rapacity (Excessively grasping [the nomination when it isn't the will of the people])

Pleonexia (strictly defined as "the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others", i.e, Trump's rightfully earned #1 standing in votes; (2) "ruthless self-seeking and an ARROGANT assumption that others and things exist for one's own benefit".) Just listen to him and watch him.

money-grubbing ("send five dollars, send ten dollars...")

"Avarice" used in a sentence, "The job had become less about integrity and more about avarice". (This verbatim from a Google definition search. It's like they were writing it specifically about him.)

[Ohioan]

Thank you!

[Ohioan]

You are clearly right. My real point is that these supposed Conservative intellectuals at National Review are pretty pathetic, even as smear artists.

Mountebanks, even the pathetic ones, however, deserve to be unhorsed!

[Ohioan]

Don't you appreciate how the Trump haters jump on any alleged inconsistency in Trump's positions, but quote people completely out of context in support of their smear attempts?

Does anyone with even the most elemental knowledge of American values in 1787 (when the Constitution was drafted) believe that the Founders would have any truck at all with those claiming to be defending American Conservatism against Trump.

There might even be a tar & feathering or two, but it would not be directed against Donald or any of us supporting him!

Note, I am not advocating applying hot tar and feathers to any of the dear souls; just making an observation.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

Is this the same author who put out the screed about poor whites who have to just die?

So the new meme is out, progressive populist, thanks Levin you made genius! Barking mad insanity is quite a sight to behold.

[commonguymd]

Kevin Williamson is a shrill shell of himself anymore. The aerobic reach around the nevertrump folks are doing to fellate each other is getting more anxious and hyperbolic.

Amusing I guess.