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 ...
Apparently Levin — for all his vaunted learning — is unaware that more than one type of populism exists. And that .... each type is grounded in different core values.
Being an ideologue is what everyone should be. Being an ideologue means you actually have beliefs and principles and a moral foundation. That is the difference between a man and an animal.
Anyone can be a “patriot.” It’s a relativistic term. A patriot in Nazi Germany was immoral. A patriot in the U.S.A. in WW2 was a hero. Patriot doesn’t tell you anything without the context. Ideology tells you everything. Beliefs transcend a country or borders and are immutable. They are what a leader NEEDS to have to be good.
I probably should have said grabbing control back to themselves from the rich. Grabbing money from the rich is progressivism and Marxism,but taking control of ones destiny is populist conservatism. Thank you for the critique.
Here's a dictionary definition of populism...
At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite. The word populism comes from the Latin word for "people," populus. Definitions of populism.
And it sounds pretty good to me...
Trump is bigly on the sovereignty of the United States...He appears to be the only one...Everyone else is geared for the New World Order which demolishes the sovereignty of the U.S. which is a requirement for a Free Republic...
I don’t see that at all. Amazing innovation has happened in our economy in the last 30 years. We don’t seem to have any serious issues like inflation or the oil crisis in the ‘70s. 9/11 and the 2008 crash were the only real blips in the economy. And the second one was caused 100% by government intervention/social engineering in the housing market, backing unlimited bad loans, violating libertarian economics.
Our debt is bad, but it’s because of government spending. Other than those two abovementioned downturns, federal tax revenue has been rising continuously, even in adjusted dollars.
If the government monopoly and subsidizing of education was stopped, we would be doing even better, and people would be finding the right jobs for themselves easier.
OK, but I still don’t believe in any philosophy that creates an us vs. them between the “rich” and whoever is the non-rich. Even the dictionary definition of populism attacks the wealthy. Conservative or libertarian ideology doesn’t send negative vibes out about the rich. It says that everybody should have the freedom to get rich. The idea of taking something back from the “rich” seems to imply that the rich have taken something from us to get where they are. And that just sounds like Sanders to me. The old idea that there’s a single pie and the rich are hoarding up a big part of it, which just isn’t how economics works.
I agree with your take on education.
That is some dictionary. It sounds good to me too. I’m just wondering why Levin would want even want to denigrate populism as you have defined it.
Words are funny things. This “populism” used to be called patriotism, national security, sound economic policy.
Well you have another good point. But the rich and powerful often control others. Look at the elites now.
We are in revolt. We want our freedom to pursue our happiness in freedom from control by others.
The line is always thin between true populism and socialism and progressives. Thanks.
Well you have another good point. But the rich and powerful often control others. Look at the elites now.
We are in revolt. We want our freedom to pursue our happiness in freedom from control by others.
The line is always thin between true populism and socialism and progressives. Thanks.
Well you have another good point. But the rich and powerful often control others. Look at the elites now.
We are in revolt. We want our freedom to pursue our happiness in freedom from control by others.
The line is always thin between true populism and socialism and progressives. Thanks.
Well you have another good point. But the rich and powerful often control others. Look at the elites now.
We are in revolt. We want our freedom to pursue our happiness in freedom from control by others.
The line is always thin between true populism and socialism and progressives. Thanks.
Well you have another good point. But the rich and powerful often control others. Look at the elites now.
We are in revolt. We want our freedom to pursue our happiness in freedom from control by others.
The line is always thin between true populism and socialism and progressives. Thanks.
Apparently Levin — for all his vaunted learning — is unaware that more than one type of populism exists. And that .... each type is grounded in different core values.
Bastiat wrote of the 3 terrible ism, socialism, communism and protectionism, before Marx published his manifesto. So whether Marxist or not, protectionism has long been known to be like socialism and communism evil intrusions by governments into private decisions.
Who could have guessed that Hamilton and Madison and all of those worthies in the First Congress were into communism and socialism and stuff...
“The Tariff Act of 1789, was the first major Act passed in the United States under its present Constitution of 1789 and had two purposes as stated in Section I of the Act which reads as follows:
“Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise”
My view is that the blue collar good income factory jobs have been run out of the US due to excessive government regulation. Alas the Dims have sold over regulation so well, it appears the GOP may nominate a candidate for present that ignores excess government regulation and blames the loss of blue collar jobs on trade agreements.
Interesting. Russell Kirk called conservatism the antithesis of ideology. But what would he know...
When legislating rather than constitution writing there is always the temptation to venture into areas of self or in the case you mention regional interest.
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.