Posted on 02/27/2017 5:53:57 AM PST by Kaslin
Among his other accomplishments, Donald Trump, without ever intending to, has fractured conservatism – something that was long overdue.
The American conservative movement has come quite a distance since the middle of the last century, from a small coterie viewed with contempt by the larger culture to the front ranks of a juggernaut that set back the plans of this country’s left-wing collectivists to a degree that its founders would not have considered possible. (Recall William F. Buckley’s statement that the role of conservatism was to “stand athwart history, yelling “stop.” Incredible as it may seem, “history” did stop.) Today, in large part due to its own success, it is on its way back to coterie status.
How has this come about? Here’s a simple outline of the conservative movement as it has consisted up until now: a group of conservative intellectuals, associated either with think tanks or journals, who work out philosophical and political stances, translate them into policy proposals, followed by attempts to put them into effect by the GOP, with the support of the mass of conservatives across the country.
This model has served the conservative cause well for half a century. It is now dead. It began to die long before Trump donned the robes of GOP crusader, when the core conservatives – what in the past I’ve called the Northeast Corridor conservatives – in 2008 turned against vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and in short order against the Tea Party movement that came into being as a response to the Obama regime.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
With the exception of upper management which has retained its lily whiteness.
What Eric Hoffer said about every great cause starting out as a movement, becoming a business, and ending up as a racket was as true of establishment conservatism as anything else, with one exception. It seems as though after 1988, it skipped the business phase and went straight to racket.
They could only keep the racket going because the alternative was always marginally worse, i.e. nobody of sound mind voted "for" Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, or Romney, they voted against Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. Trump was the first general election candidate with a vision and an enthusiastic base of support since Reagan. Most of Trump's supporters didn't just vote against Hillary, they voted for President Trump.
In 2016, for the first time in a generation, we didn't have to hold our noses as we voted.
Think Goldwater would have supported homosexual marriage and unfettered immigration. At the end of his life he was a quasi Libertarian. He took a pro-life stance when campaigning only for votes. He was on the fringes of true conservatism.
They have the same attitude as Bill Kristol (self-proclaimed leader of the NeverTrumpers), who recently said that Americans are lazy and decadent and need to be replaced by immigrant workers. Notice that the diagnosis of "laziness and decadence" and the prescribed solution of replacement by an H1B visa worker doesn't apply to political hacks and pundits either.
Just think how much better our country would be if we had followed up Reagan with Buchanan instead of traitors the Bush traitors. Even Bill Clinton accomplished more for conservatism. Of course, he did it kicking and screaming.
Think Goldwater would have supported homosexual marriage and unfettered immigration. At the end of his life he was a quasi Libertarian.
I think you’re right on that. Nixon was a mixed bag at best, and Eisenhower was a moderate alternative to Taft. Dewey was on the liberal side of Taft in 1944 and 1948. Wilkie was a Democrat until about a year before the 1940 election.
President Trump obviously disagrees with you that Reince Priebus is a mole, otherwise he would not have him chosen as his Chief of staff.
I agree with you about your list. I seldom turned to those people. They may have been conservatives in the sense that they were not liberal Democrats, but they had little influence on me and my ideas of conservatism.
In the past, I understood contemporary American conservatism as a merging of economic conservatives and social conservatives. I’m an economic conservative. I’ve never been hostile to social conservatives.
If I’m not mistaken, Trump has brought manufacturing Democrats into the fold. I support blue-collar Americans, as much as any other group of working Americans.
I don’t confuse labor with unions. There is a lot of non-union labor, and I don’t like the coercive elements that are built into unionism. And while manufacturing is good, it is not better. It is not some sort of sainted employment.
Those who think America is here to provide them with manufacturing (or union) jobs, are no better IMO, than those who think America is here to provide them with a job teaching English as a second language.
I think high corporate taxes, environmental extremism, unions, bad trade deals, and other mistakes have taken their toll on America, and perhaps especially on US manufacturing. While I think American labor should have to compete with foreign labor, I don’t think this competition should take place on US soil. Immigration laws should be enforced and visas scaled back.
The point of the preceding paragraph is that there are many things that should be done that will have the effect of helping labor. That is the effect, not the direct intent. Policies that intend to help labor often do so at someone else’s expense and are usually wrong-headed.
“Not true. Conservatism was fractured long before Trump. “
—
That’s EXACTLY what the author is saying.
.
So did you sit the 2012 election out and allowed that arrogant pos former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave get reelected?
I think high corporate taxes, environmental extremism, unions, bad trade deals, and other mistakes have taken their toll on America, and perhaps especially on US manufacturing. While I think American labor should have to compete with foreign labor, I don’t think this competition should take place on US soil. Immigration laws should be enforced and visas scaled back.
Spot on.
I guess he misses the good old days before the Era of Trump when people actually cared what he had to say.
I don't like or trust Priebus, but his appointment, like that of some other party hacks, is an understandable necessary evil.
I consider myself a Nationalist. I don't think we have a name yet for the party led by Trump. It's certainly republican in name only. It's not bread and butter conservatism either
Yeah, Trump is more like the revenge of Pat Buchanan than an extension of the Tea Party.
You don’t get it. Trump’s core supporters are people who like Russia and don’t care much about Iran. They are nationalists, Paulites and Buchananites.
The “movement conservatives” in the sense used here and in general are the people who worship Reagan and who are stuck in the cold war. You are inverting the meaning of everything to try to claim Trump’s victory as being due to support for a new cold war. That’s the exact opposite of what just happened in the election.
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.