Going Nativist? The next step for Dems.

NRO ^ | February 28, 2006 | Rich Lowry

[beyond the sea]

"Protectionism has usually not been a winner in American politics ........"

****

Really?

[MNJohnnie]

Except the Seal ourselves off is going to be wildly popular with the same crowd whos is going to to rabidly ballistic with the "spend more" part of this program. So once again the Dems are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I am going to assume Mr Lowery has his tongue drilling a hole thru his cheek on this one. Unfortunately there is a segment of Freeprs who will think this marvelous advice. There are Know Nothings alive and well in modern Politics.

[MNJohnnie]

Name Hoover mean anything to you? Last Serious American Protectionist law was passed on his watch.

[saganite]

In case there's any doubt about what the author is saying about the Democrats strategy options here I've extracted the key words.

isolationism and nativism.
Protectionism
anti-foreign sentiment
taxes, regulations and subsidies
demagogue
isolationist sentiment
irresponsible
opportunism knocking

[beyond the sea]

I'm Swiss .............

;-)

[MNJohnnie]

Ah, well Hoover was the US President when the 1929 Stock Market crash happened. His response was to pass a serious protectionist trade bill and cut Govt spending to the bone. It was a seriously wrong answer economically. He was a Republican. Republicans then spent the next 72 years pretty much the constant minority party in the US House of Representatives.

[nopardons]

Since when was Pittsburgh, Pa. in SWITZERLAND?

[nopardons]

He lied...he's not Swiss.

[Caipirabob]

The Dims are already Socialist. Now they're going "National"?

[Caipirabob]

Thanks for the posts this morning.

[ClearCase_guy]

I can see the Democrats as Isolationists -- they never know how to handle foreign policy.
But I believe "nativist" implies a distrust of, and opposition to, immigration.

Democrats will be "nativist" when they start pushing for secure borders with Mexico.

I see them as National Socialists with a weak foreign policy.

[normy]

This is a winning strategy if people can believe them. I am not saying its good or bad, just winning. If they could find the balls to stop illegal immigration then they will win back the White House and Congress, IF they are believed by the public.

Abortion and gay rights can't be the cornerstone of your party. Protectionism will appeal.

[proxy_user]

Isolationism would be perfectly feasible for the US. We have a large country with lots of natural resources, and a skilled population. We could make everything we need ourselves. The only thing that might give us pause is oil and energy.

This would, of course, cause somewhat higher prices and a lower standard of living. However, many of our problems are caused by being too rich for our own good, and we might benefit by cutting back a little.

However, this is probably not going to happen.

[beyond the sea]

Since when was Pittsburgh, Pa. in SWITZERLAND? ........ He lied.......

Again.............AGAIN you did not read accurately. At least you are consistent.

You continually amuse me at with arrogant name-calling and incorrect claims.

In post #9 you told another poster (MNJohnnie) that I am a liar, right? That is what you wrote.

In the earlier post I merely wrote that I was Swiss............... NOT that I LIVE in Switzerland. Do you not understand the difference? Ever hear of heritage?

Now, quit your angry ways, or ............... you could just learn how to read.

[beyond the sea]

Thanks for that.

When I wrote "Really?" in post 2, I was just asking for other FReepers' opinions on that sentence about protectionism in the article.

Thanks for the short history lesson.

[beyond the sea]

He lied...he's not Swiss.

Why am I reminded of the old Bolivian prospector Percy in "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid", “Morons. I‘ve got morons on my team.” LOL.

****

Consulate of Switzerland

P.O. Box 7379

Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (that's right near Marci's Winchester Thurston, nopardons) ;-)

(412) 967-6038

Please call for flight info/trips to Zurich.

;-)

[Mike Darancette]

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), are promoting legislation that would ban any company owned by a foreign government from managing a U.S. terminal..

Should be a winner to some on this forum. Kick the fureners out of our ports and have the terminals run by the guvment and the AFL-CIO.

[Stultis]

Isolationism would be perfectly feasible for the US.

Not as a democratic Republic of free citizens. The degree of isolation you describe could only be imposed by authoritarian, if not totalitarian, means.