Posted on 03/17/2016 6:47:15 PM PDT by MLL
On Thursday night, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin took on the rising tide of "populist nationalism" with a history lesson.
Populism, Levin explained, is really just progressivism. The populist movement in America was the forerunner of the progressive movement, and both populism and progressivism share the same disdain for constitutionalism that conservatives reject.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
It was Cruz, not Trump who came closer to taking away first amendment rights.
When he blamed Trump for the violence in Chicago, he sided with the totalitarian left that actually wants to take free speech away.
I guess you forgot that.
He’s a patriot. You should give it a try sometime.
Because controling commerce is very lucrative for ruling class
So don't call it populism (which I agree with you), call it common sense. The "elites" have sold out this entire nation. The serfs are kinda pissed. Sorry that that abrades your sensitivities.
Who? Trump or Levin? Trump loves his country but has a liberal streak. He is an independent running inside the Republican party
This isn’t a zero sum game. If the gravy train suckling globalist stooges need a populist kick in the teeth (figuratively, before any snowflakes faint), then that’s what they need.
Ted Cruz is a globalist and will not fix any of the country’s serious problems. He will pontificate. We don’t need words, we need action.
“There is no way that you listened to what he said. Listen to Mark before you post”
Yeah, tell him the rules, he’s only been here 17 years longer than you. Idiot.
Globalism IS NOT conservatism.
And Levin qualifies as one of the biggest offenders. Progressivism doesn't necessarily follow populism. But progressivism and socialism and communism and various hybrids of those three can and have followed monarchies, oligarchies, assorted royal families and privileged nobles who have lorded over the masses throughout history.
Whenever some upper class or nobility has been able to fashion a nation and its policies and institutions to give most of the wealth and benefits to a very few at the top, then all sorts of revolutionary uprisings or movements can result. The US has moved steadily in that direction and what Levin puts down as some unseemly form of populism is actually a very rational and predictable push back from those who are increasing left out of economic rewards produced by the US economy, squeezed out specifically by the the immigration and trade policies that have been pursued for the past fifty or more years.
Levin needs to get back to his law books and court cases.
Let me see if understand this. We're supposed to be constitutional purists, focused on the ideas of the founders, but part of that is instituting a 16% VAT tax.
Why hasn't Sen. Cruz introduced legislation to advance his idea for a new tax?
No wonder some of them support out-and-out Communist "nationalist" groups such as the Irish republican groups.
But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively.
It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.
The same Washington who after fighting a war against the British in opposition to unfair taxes wasted no time in waging one against Pennsylvania farmers?
Well, meet the new boss...
The ruling class always uses state force to extract taxes.
Do you want me to tell him, instead?
Levin is being deceitful. Dragging in previous eras with different dynamics and forcing them onto the present time is sophistry of the most devious kind. Levin has lost all his credibility in his mindless pursuit of his love affair with Cruz.
Actually the whole structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate populism which the framers thought of as mob rule.
Originally, the only direct voice of the people was to be had in the House of Representatives, the Senate being elected by state legislatures. The Supreme Court was not elected at all and the President of the United States was not directly elected either but electors were elected who under the Constitution were expected to exercise their judgment in passing on the populist will.
It is the genius of the Constitution to recognize the popular will but to confine its scope by a system of checks and balances and separation of powers which were frankly designed to frustrate the popular will. That is why we call it a Republic and not a democracy.
I don't will think you believe in the absolute power of the populist will. Are you ready to surrender your Second Amendment rights to bear arms to the Democrats when they gain a majority? I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.
Preach it!
“But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.” — Karl Marx February 1848
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.