The Trump Workers Party-How our president is reviving an older more genuine liberalism

Frank Buckley is a real original, and his recent book, The Republican Workers Party, gives us plenty to ponder. He is a political maverick, rejecting labels and stereotypes, which delights me.

The title comes from Trump’s speech to CPAC in 2017. Which Buckley characterizes this way:

The Republican Workers Party would be libertarian in its opposition to crony capitalism but economically liberal when it comes to welfare policies for those truly in need. It would be a party of nationalists who reject a globalism that is indifferent between the welfare of Americans and of foreigners. It would be a jobs party led by a jobs president…

He’s a Trump guy, neither a traditional conservative nor an establishment Republican. He deplores the indifference both liberals and conservatives reserve for the poor, and writes movingly about “empathy erosion.” But unlike true believers of both Left and Right, Buckley does not believe that education, important though it may be, can overcome it. Instead, he sides with Pascal: “the heart has its reasons which reason knoweth not.”

In other words, the remedy for today’s indifference toward the poor is not so much new legislation as new leaders, who lead by moral example rather than appeal to any “modern” ideology. Buckley powerfully invokes religion—religious men and women--as the only way out. In so doing, he says we need less Law School Law and more revealed law, and he has little admiration for either the top conservatives or the leading liberals.

In 2016 modern liberalism died…it was a liberalism that had lost its way and forgotten its religious origins, that smirked at believers…that decried privilege while luxuriating in it…a liberalism without souls…

Meanwhile, the conservatives abandoned the liberalism of the Founders. The Sisters of Charity, Buckley reminds us, “had never read John Locke, but…they had something better than a theory or a philosophy.”

Meanwhile again, Trump addressed Americans who had been maltreated by the government and dropped into the ranks of the impoverished, unemployed, and unsuccessful. “(Trump) identified the hollowness of modern liberalism and appealed to a forgotten liberalism of compassion for fellow Americans.”

Ergo, the workers’ party. It’s an important and provocative book. I disagree with a lot of it, but I cherish it nonetheless, which is the way I feel about Trump himself. It’s useful and, I think, correct to think of Trump’s election as a rejection of the clichés of both left and right, but I’m not at all convinced that religious inspiration is the most reliable antidote. Looking around the world of faith nowadays, from the scandals of the Catholic Church to radical Islamism in its various violent incarnations, doesn’t suggest optimism. Leadership based on fealty to religious diktats has had, let us say, a very mixed record of virtuous pursuits.

Machiavelli put it best, I think, when he said that if man is left to his own impulses, he is more likely to do evil than to do good. Certainly human history bears this out. Moments of virtue are very rare, while terrible events are far more common. Both our own nature and the unquestioned power of corruption drive us toward evil. The Founders knew this well, which is why they created a system where all efforts to consolidate power would be blocked whenever possible.

When I look at Trump, I see many admirable impulses at work, but I also see an administration that has done poorly in staffing out the government. Yes, he has done well in many areas, most importantly in addressing the poor treatment of American workers. It’s what the workers’ party is all about. But he has yet to master Washington, and he makes huge mistakes about key appointees. If his workers party is going to succeed he’s got to master that. I don’t believe that job creation and genuine empathy for the workers, new and old, is good enough.

It sounds like this guy is sort of pushing for a return to Jeffersonian Liberalism or Jeffersonian Democracy.

I’ve not really studied it but have some familiarity. Here’s what Wikipedia says (your mileage may vary)

Jefferson has been called “the most democratic of the Founding fathers”.[3] The Jeffersonians advocated a narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s Article I provisions granting powers to the federal government. They strenuously opposed the Federalist Party, led by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. President George Washington generally supported Hamilton’s program for a financially strong national government. The election of Jefferson in 1800, which he called “the revolution of 1800”, brought in the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson and the permanent eclipse of the Federalists, apart from the Supreme Court.[4]

“Jeffersonian democracy” is an umbrella term and some factions favored some positions more than others. While principled, with vehemently held core beliefs, the Jeffersonians had factions that disputed the true meaning of their creed. For example, during the War of 1812 it became apparent that independent state militia units were inadequate for conducting a serious war against a major country. The new Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, a Jeffersonian, proposed to build up the Army. With the support of most Republicans in Congress, he got his way.[5] However, the “Old Republican” faction, claiming to be true to the Jeffersonian Principles of ‘98, fought him and reduced the size of the Army after Spain sold Florida to the U.S.[6]

Historians characterize Jeffersonian democracy as including the following core ideals:
The core political value of America is republicanism—citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy.[7]
Jeffersonian values are best expressed through an organized political party. The Jeffersonian party was officially the “Republican Party” (political scientists later called it the Democratic-Republican Party to differentiate it from the later Republican Party of Lincoln).[8]
It was the duty of citizens to vote and the Jeffersonians invented many modern campaign techniques designed to get out the vote. Turnout indeed soared across the country.[9] The work of John J. Beckley, Jefferson’s agent in Pennsylvania, set new standards in the 1790s. In the 1796 presidential election, he blanketed the state with agents who passed out 30,000 hand-written tickets, naming all 15 electors (printed tickets were not allowed). Historians consider Beckley to be one of the first American professional campaign managers and his techniques were quickly adopted in other states.[10]
The Federalist Party, especially its leader Alexander Hamilton, was the arch-foe because of its acceptance of aristocracy and British methods.
The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community—it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most anti-Federalists from 1787–1788 joined the Jeffersonians.[11]
Separation of church and state is the best method to keep government free of religious disputes and religion free from corruption by government.[12]
The federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.[13]
The federal government must not violate the rights of the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written secretly by Jefferson and James Madison) proclaim these principles.[14]
Freedom of speech and the press are the best methods to prevent tyranny over the people by their own government. The Federalists’ violation of this freedom through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 became a major issue.[15]
The yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences—government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the “cesspools of corruption” and should be avoided.[16]

“We the People” in an original edition of the U.S. ConstitutionThe United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. However, as Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1789, “no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation”.[17]
All men have the right to be informed and thus to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had a right to an education no matter their circumstance or status in life.[18]
The judiciary should be subservient to the elected branches and the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress. The Jeffersonians lost this battle to Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, who dominated the Court from 1801 to his death in 1835.[19]
The Jeffersonians also had a distinct foreign policy:[20] Americans had a duty to spread what Jefferson called the “Empire of Liberty” to the world, but should avoid “entangling alliances”.[21]
Britain was the greatest threat, especially its monarchy, aristocracy, corruption and business methods—the Jay Treaty of 1794 was much too favorable to Britain and thus threatened American values.[22]
At least in the early stages of the French Revolution, France was the ideal European nation. According to Michael Hardt, “Jefferson’s support of the French Revolution often serves in his mind as a defense of republicanism against the monarchism of the Anglophiles”.[23] On the other hand, Napoleon was the antithesis of republicanism and could not be supported.[24]
Louisiana and the Mississippi River were critical to American national interests. Control by Spain was tolerable—control by France was unacceptable. See Louisiana Purchase.
A standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided—much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.[25] See Embargo Act of 1807.
The militia was adequate to defend the nation. During the Revolutionary War previously, a national conflict, in this case the War of 1812, required the creation of a national army for the duration of international hostilities.

There’s more but this is already too long.

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.