Posted on 02/08/2016 6:47:05 AM PST by bigtoona
Why American cannot abide another ideologue as president
We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner at the home of friends. The dinner conversation was jocund, ranging from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics. At one point reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.
I said that neither does Trump view himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He then sets about fixing it. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.
Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.
Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending, globalism to the detriment of American interests and well-being, denial of what the real problems are and weak, ineffective, milquetoast leadership that amounts to Barney Fife, deputy sheriff – appeasement-oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.
Immigration isn’t a Republican problem; it isn’t a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach, not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.
The impending collapse of the economy isn’t a liberal or conservative problem; it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common-sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things, and their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect. Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work. They do not promise to accommodate.
Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability, and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn’t work you don’t continue trying to make it work, hoping that at some point it will.
As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cellphone in every pocket, free college tuition and a $15-an-hour minimum wage for working the drive-through a Carl’s Jr.
I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see problems and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump. I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: 1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy†method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; 2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who own him vis-a-vis donations; 3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and 4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.
Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy†one another. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock and barrel by the bankers, corporations and big-dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts that people don’t give tens of millions without expecting something in return.
We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues – and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worst off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?
I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now. And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that the solution to fix same is not about a party, but a willingness and boldness to get it done.
People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common amongst those who have never accomplished anything in their lives and who have always played it safe not willing to risk failure.
So in other words, Trump gets his success by compromise. But there are some positions in politics that one should not compromise on. Trump doesn't have any.
Do you believe he will govern as a conservative?
In German, that's Reichsleiter.
In Spanish, El Lider -- that was Juan Peron's "title".
You really want to take us there?
What is the CORRECT way? Your way? My way? My neighbors way? Obama's way?Hillary's way? How about the PRO AMERICAN way? I know, Bernie's way./s
We desperately need a conservative “ideologue” in the White House.
Highly amusing to see people here bragging about how their guy isn’t a conservative and how that’s a good thing.
Except career politicians stay in power by NOT fixing problems. If all problems disappear, there would be no need for big taxes and a big federal government.
Trump on the hand, has actual record of fixing problems successfully, and that is why he is 10,000 times richer than most of us on FR.
Barbra Streisand. If career politicians could fix problems, the country would be swimming in prosperity and there would be no illegals living on welfare paid by tax payers.
People see patriotism in Trump. They also see the writing on the wall and understand that Trump is the only one of the republicans who can actually win the election. They also believe that he will move the ball in the right direction.
CRUZ WIL NEVER EVER MAKE IT TO THE END. His own party will throw in for Hilary rather than elect a non establishment candidate. That is why people are willing to accept that Trump is not a conservative ideologue.
People are tired of Thomas Sowell and all the other defenders of conservatism sitting in their think tanks and radio shows, and have no effect on the conservative makeup of the federal government. They want to see someone get in there and defend America and ACTUALLY SUCCEED!
This just in, Bloomberg has said he would commit up to $1 billion of his own money to run as an Independent, especially if Cruz and Bernie are the candidates. He would have to commit in early March to get on ticket in 50 states.
I said that neither does Trump view himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He then sets about fixing it. He does not see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned.
That says exactly what I want to see happen. We have problems that need solving. You can spout conservatism and constitution all day long but what good does it do if the same problems exist at the end of the day? Career politicians either lack the will or lack the ability to solve anything. Time for solutions, not political rhetoric.
I’ve heard all this before...
McCain is a plain-spoken pragmatist who can build a coalition
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968491/posts
Military culture, pragmatism shape McCain
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0519/p01s01-uspo.html
A strong-willed pragmatist, McCain would need to reach across the aisle
https://www.colby.edu/news/2008/10/19/a-strong-willed-pragmatist-mccain-would-need-to-reach-across-the-aisle-14/
Pragmatist is media-speak for moderates who cave to the left.
So goes the Trump supporter meme, which I reject both as to Trump’s alleged strength and Cruz’s alleged weakness. I think Trump is a horrible general election candidate, only Bush is worse in term of electability in my opinion.
“He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He then sets about fixing it.”
So he’s a progressive. At least he is if the government is involved in the fix. As he is running for President, he almost certainly sees the federal government as his tool of choice for ‘fixing’ those pesky ‘problems.’
That’s the philosophy that got us into the ‘fix’ we are in.
“Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to out crazy one another.”
It is not LIKE that it IS listening to two lunatics trying to out crazy one another.
“If you have the “willingness and boldness†to remove graffiti from a wall by knocking down the building you have solved nothing and created more problems.”
Yep, I have seen too much of that kind of boldness. It makes me think of a farmer who took a load of watermelons to the market and upon hearing how low a price was offered said he would take them back to the farm and let them rot rather than accept such a low price. A real genius he was, burned more fuel going home because he was still loaded, had to unload them himself rather than watching someone else load them on a bigger truck, had to smell them rotting and gave up the money he coud have gotten which, though meager, was better than zero.
We don’t know Trump’s way that’s for sure. He just tells us his plans are great.
The government has no more and no less "moral authority" to impose tariffs than any other type of tax. If the government can tax income or consumption, it can impose import duties. In fact, import duties accounted for most of Federal Revenue in the 1800's, when there were no income or corporate taxes.
>> import duties accounted for most of Federal Revenue in the 1800’s, when there were no income or corporate taxes <<
Of course. But “tariffs for revenue” were understood during the 1800’s to be conceptually and morally different from “tariffs for protection.”
Tariffs for protection are morally indefensible, while tariffs for revenue are a legitimate (if not always efficient) government tool.
For most of the 19th century, the most important dividing issue between Republicans (and their Federalists/Whig predecessors) and Democrats (Democratic Republicans) was tariffs vs. free trade.
>> Washington and Hamilton realized that without protective tariffs, the US would not become a manufacturing power, it would be an economic backwater selling raw material and agricultural goods to Europe <<
I don’t know about Washington’s position. Never studied it. But you’re correct about Hamilton. And Hamilton was flat-out wrong on the matter, as were Henry Clay and countless other Whigs, Free Soilers and Republicans. But I’ll give them a pass on the issue, since they opposed and ultimately abolished slavery.
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.