Posted on 01/23/2016 11:00:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
One can only hope that the Trump phenomenon will bring into the sunlight several fictions, most, but not all, of which GOP boosters have been promoting for years.
The first is that there are two fundamentally opposed forces within the Republican Party: "the Establishment" and "conservatives," "anti-Establishmentarians," or "outsiders."
In reality, the conflicts that beset the GOP are internecine battles within one political establishment. There is no "anti-Establishment."
Nor is Trump an "anti-Establishment" outsider. Trump has been peddling and receiving political influence for years courtesy of both Republican and Democrat politicians alike. Few "outsiders" have had so many "ins" with the establishment as has Trump.
Of course, if it is nonsense to identify Trump as an "anti-Establishmentarian"—and it is—then it is doubly nonsensical to suggest that Senators Cruz, Rubio, and Paul, or Governors Christie, Kasich, Bush, and Huckabee are "anti-Establishment."
A true outsider, like you or I, wouldn't be able to come within miles of a presidential race while campaigning as a Republican or Democrat.
Third, Trump's Republican critics continually charge that unlike, say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, Trump is not an authentic "conservative." Now, this allegation is true as far as it goes: Trump is not a conservative. But because the allegation doesn't go far at all, it may as well be a lie.
While Trump is not a conservative, neither are his GOP rivals and accusers.
In fact, unless being a proponent of an activist, omnipotent government that exists to spread "liberal democratic" values around the globe is necessary for being a "true conservative," Trump is arguably more conservative than Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and virtually all of the other Republican contenders.
And this gets us to our next, and probably most important, myth to be exposed.
For decades, the so-called "conservative movement" has been largely a neoconservative movement. Neoconservatives have been remarkably successful in convincing millions and millions of Americans both that they are conservative and that the Republican Party and conservatism are one.
The truth, though, is that neoconservatism is no form of conservatism at all. The conservative movement that took flight nearly 70 years ago consisted of multiple strains, it's true, but it was exemplified in many respects by Russell Kirk, the man without whose labor William F. Buckley says it is "inconceivable" that there ever would've been any such movement.
Kirk was a conservative in the vein of Edmund Burke, the 18th century Irish Parliamentarian who is widely regarded today as "the patron saint" of conservatism. Kirk was painfully aware of the differences between conservatism and neoconservatism, noting that the two were different in kind.
Conservatives in the mold of Kirk favored a wide dispersion or decentralization of power and authority—what is commonly referred to as "states' rights." They opposed all attempts at "leveling," all redistributive schemes designed to alleviate "inequalities." Yet it isn't just utopian domestic visions for which conservatives like Kirk had no use. They disdained idyllic foreign policy plans as well. Hence, before he died in 1994, Kirk denounced the first President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Clearly, between classical conservatives and neoconservatives there is a chasm. Yet it isn't just that neoconservatives and conservatives disagree. Upon appropriating the conservative label, a move that involved an exercise in repackaging the likes of which wouldn't be seen again until "gay rights'" advocates redefined marriage, neoconservatives did their best to see to it that conservative voices would no longer be heard—at least not within the Republican Party.
That's right: Sarah Palin and others misspeak when they simply say that "the Establishment" is not conservative. The referent here—neoconservatives—are anti-conservative.
That this giant in the history of the American conservative movement is never mentioned in any "conservative" media outlets today proves that Kirk has been flushed down the memory hole. However, it isn't just Kirk who has been "purged" from the (neo) conservative movement.
Trump's meteoric rise stemmed principally from his tough talk on immigration—an issue that now ranks in no small measure of importance for Americans. Ann Coulter, Trump's most vocal and visible of nationally recognized supporters, has also been superb in highlighting the disaster that is our immigration policy.
Yet for well over 20 years, Peter Brimelow, a one-time associate of Buckley and contributor to National Review, has been writing and speaking tirelessly on this very issue. A veteran when it comes to telling hard, politically incorrect truths, Brimelow's work is second to none in this arena. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to refer to him as a pioneer.
But Peter Brimelow has long been expunged from "the conservative movement."
Paul Gottfried is a scholar of European intellectual history and the American conservative movement. He too was friends with Buckley at one time, as well as a contributor to NR.
Yet that was then, this is now. Paul too has been purged.
The late Joseph Sobran, who at one time was a protégé of a sort to Buckley and a brilliant essayist, found himself unceremoniously ejected from the "conservative" movement, as did the now deceased Samuel Francis (who, remarkably, Rush Limbaugh, to his credit, recently defended on his radio show).
John Derbyshire, a witty, talented polymath, wrote regularly for National Review until just a few years ago when he too was abruptly sacked for a racially incorrect article (that he wrote for another publication).
This list of extraordinarily intelligent, perceptive, and courageous old right thinkers who have been exiled by the self-appointed gate-keepers of "the conservative movement" is hardly exhaustive.
And now neoconservatives continue to presume to tell the rest of us who is truly conservative and who isn't.
If any of the foregoing fictions will crumble to pieces during this most atypical of election seasons, hopefully it will be the fiction that the self-declared guardians of the "conservative movement" are conservative.
Of course not. I wrote in Duncan Hunter in 2008 and bit the bullet in 2012 and voted for Romney in 2012. No more bullet biting. I will only vote for conservatives henceforth no matter who wins the nomination.
They are motivated by two things. Their wallets and their asses. In the former case they will vote D and in the latter R.
The majority of citizens are not ideological. Classifying them left or right is ridiculous.
What we ideologues fail to understand is that we are freaks of nature. We are not normal or typical.
Most people who tell you their position on an issue are just telling you what they think you want to hear, or what is politically correct. That doesn’t mean their position on the issue is the opposite. No. They don’t have a position.
Most people vote on who is friendly and seems to be their friend...who seems to be like them...who seems to be on their side.
In consulting to 30+ big IT shops Ive worked beside many immigrants..some illegal, some H1B, some green card, some on student or tourist visa.
The managers make the best choice in bringing them in.
Repeatedly I see a big shop has budget for 3 big projects. They try and are unable to staff up all 3 projects with citizens...repeatedly. So they bring in immigrants.
Often they kill one project so they can fully staff the other 2 projects.
The alternatives are to send the entire project to India (which often happens. Ive done my share of training Indians to take my job to India.)
Or the alternative is to kill the projects.
The situation is complex. Companies see a lot of uncertainty in technology, in the stock market, in the customers and competition, and especially in government regulation.
Companies do not want to commit to long term employees. So the trend in the past 30 years has to increase the share of consultants from 5% to 50% in most big shops. Many Citizens don’t want to work as a consultant. They want security. Other citizens are picky about the technology they will work with. They don’t want any job that would have them. Other citizens are picky about the company they will work for. Not everyone can work in Silicon Valley. Maybe their best job is in a less prestigous place.
Fixed.
Total BS. At the right price you can fill every job in the USA with US citizen. It is called supply and demand you should study that theory. It may help you.
I have a lot of sympathy for Cruz supporters who expect the man to walk into the Whitehouse, wave his magic wand(pen) and abolish all the things they say they stand against. It’s going to be a gut wrenching experience. I know. I’ve been there.
I should have added; “provided Cruz wins.” If he doesn’t they will be in seventh heaven anyway, having us Trump supporters to blame ad nauseam for the “fall”.
There are 5 weeks before Super Tuesday. New Hampshire’s primary is two weeks away. This thing is either Trump, or Cruz or establishment candidate X. The only way X has a chance is that Trump loses Iowa to Cruz. And X has a good showing in New Hampshire. The idea is that other would-be X candidates quit and X suddenly surges in the polls. Because its believed that all the X want’t-be’s are votes against Cruz and Trump. Believe me those folks in National Review don’t like Cruz. They are just hoping he will beat Trump.
Money suddenly finds one candidate to back and with the help of the media, suddenly Rubio or Christi or even Kasich gets all the attention for coming in second place, 20 points behind Trump. This kind of thing happened with the democrats in 2008. Hillary had one bad debate, and a reign of bad press came down on her like she had just desecrated Martin Luther Kings grave. This is the plan.
Not gonna happen. 2/3 of primary voters are backing either Trump, Cruz or Carson. It’s either Trump or Cruz.
RE: I have a lot of sympathy for Cruz supporters who expect the man to walk into the Whitehouse, wave his magic wand(pen) and abolish all the things they say they stand against.
Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the Department of Education, so did he man he appoint to run it — Bill Bennett.
Look what happened since — IT HAS INCREASED IN SIZE.
Indians have the supply. IT shops have the demand.
checkmate
Not if Trump reduces H-1B quotas to zero. Ha.
Since 1992 virtually all spots I see filled are low six figure. In talking with applicants who refused jobs or did not apply for them (because they were the wrong technology) rarely if ever was money an issue.
Most, but not all, of the Indians I currently work beside are making more than I am.. and more than most citizens. I was informed last week they are making 25/hr more than my six figure income.
If you had offered them 250K/yr would they have taken the job? I think so. If you had just upped your offer they would have taken the job. Again for the 1 millionth time there is a price point for every job and position and it is time to shut the cookie jar. Take the H-1B quotas down to zero so leaches like you can go out of business or hire Americans, Go America, go Trump, and piss on the un American POS that infest the USA.
Do you believe the Council on Foreign Relations has a globalist agenda to marginalize and end American sovereignty or hegemony? Do not wait for the translation answer the question.
The clear answer is Yes! What candidate is married to a CFR member and can you lie to the rest of us and say that does not matter?
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Again India has the supply. IT shops have the demand.
Do you want congress to repeal the law of supply and demand?
No, I want Americans put first and protected form international predators like you. The laws of supply and demand work just fine inside the good ole USA. If you can't pay the prevailing wage for an America then go out of business. Your competitors will figure it out. If Americans can't hire Americans then so be it. What is the point of a country and borders anyway? Does that concept bother you?
Task Force Members included
HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.
proposals translated:
In this period of political transition in Canada and Mexico, the Task Force proposes new ideas to cope with continental issues that should bring the debate in both countries, and the United States. To guarantee freedom, security, justice and prosperity of North America, the Working Group proposes specific measures:
Enhance the security of North America
Establish a common security perimeter in 2010.
Develop a system of passes with North American biometric identifiers.
Develop a unified border action plan and expand customs facilities.
Create a single economic space:
Adopt a common external tariff.
Allow free movement of goods within North America.
Go to full mobility of labor between Canada and the US Develop a North American energy strategy more focused on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases - a regional alternative to Kyoto.
Review the sectors of NAFTA that were excluded.
Develop and implement a North American regulatory plan that would include exchanges' open skies and free movement "and a unified approach to protect consumers on diet plans, health and the environment.
Expand temporary worker programs and create a "North American preference" for immigration to US citizens.
More equitable distribution of benefits:
Establish Investors North American investments to build the infrastructure linking the poorest regions of Southern Mexico to Northern markets. Restructure and consolidate the public finances of Mexico.
Fully develop Mexican energy resources to better use technology and international capital.
Institutionalize the partnership:
Establish a permanent tribunal for trade disputes and investments.
Convene a meeting at the annual North American summit.
Establish a tri-national Competition Commission to develop a common approach to trade remedies.
Expand scholarship programs in the three countries and establish a network of centers for North American studies.
Ms. Heidi S. Cruz
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
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.