Why Populism is Really Statism

Conservative Review ^ | 03/17/2016 | Mark Levin

[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.

[enumerated]

First of all, I love Mark Levin. Years ago, I adopted his use of the term “Statist”, because it is the best “-ist” name yet for describing those who prescribe big overreaching government. Big overreaching government is exactly what the constitution was intended to protect us against.

Other “-ist” names, communist, socialist, populist, nationalist, protectionist, even capitalist (especially when prefixed with the word “crony”), are bald attempts to describe something wrong, something anti liberty, something that in one way or another requires a transfer of power and control to central government, a loss of liberty. Unfortunately, these names become blurry and vague from overuse and misapplication.

IMHO, only Statist and perhaps Constitutionalist remain clear and useful as terms to describe political movements that promote a bigger overreaching central government, and abrogation of the constitution. I largely thank Levin for coining these terms or at least keeping these terms alive.

Having said all that, and having listened to Levin’s piece, I remain unconvinced regarding whether a) the agrarian movement begat the populist movement, or the populist movement caused nationalism, which begat progressivism, socialism, etc.

I don’t doubt the movements have common elements or common champions or that one followed the other or influenced the other. I simply doubt the usefulness of conflating them and creating the tautology of “Trump is popular there for a populist, wants America first, therefore nationalist, wants free but fair trade, therefore protectionist, therefore progressive, therefore what, socialist? These terms are too hackneyed so I don’t buy the guilt by association.

Levin’s most compelling points are made without the use of these terms: Trump wants to force Apple to move manufacturing back to USA, by what power? Trump wants to slap a 45% tarrif on imports.

I wish Trump would talk about lowering corporate taxes and eliminating punitive regulations (which he plans to do) rather than import taxes, as a way of rebuilding manufacturing base. I wish he would say a bunch of conservative things Ted Cruz says.

Unfortunately, the left has successfully corrupted the language with a PC culture wherein they get to dictate what is OK to say out loud. This means conservative ideas and principles will be understood as racism, selfishness, bigotry, hate and xenophobia. Defense of liberty is seen as lack of compassion for fellow man. Until this PC poisoning of the language is addressed, no outspoken conservative can be elected.

[enumerated]

Oops. “Bald” = “valid”

[ek_hornbeck]

“Karl Marx in fact wrote in favor of free trade in 1848. Not exactly for the usual reasons, but because he believed it would hasten the “revolution”” True. He wasn’t wanting mankind to benefit. He wanted nation states destroyed, and a worldwide Marxist revolution. And he thought free trade was a fine tool to achieve that.

Many of today's advocates of "free trade" (regardless of party) support it for the same reason that Marx supported it: the demise of the nation state. Like Marxists, today's elites want a transnational order in which individual nations and cultures are obsolete. This is also the reason why the elites want to open our borders to the Third World. Support for liberal immigration policy and "free trade" are like ideological litmus tests for being part of the elite political establishment.

The only difference between them and Marxists is in their vision of who/what replaces that nation state. The Marxists wanted a "revolutionary proletariat", while the Davos crowd wants to replace the nation state with transnational corporations and the bureaucracies that cater to their needs.

[the_doc]

If that means we need a General Grant so be it. I will buy the whiskey.

I don't think Cruz drinks.

[Pelham]

I suspect that’s exactly the case. And that’s why both Marxists and the Davos crowd see a patriot and economic nationalist as their bitter enemy.

[Poison Pill]

So were they [marxist] or not?

Marxism is a late 19th Century critique of economic, social and industrial manufacturing dynamics that arose 50 years after the founding of the country. I can only assume from your question that you don't understand the basic timeline of world history. The theory of Marxism is 100 years removed from the founding of the country. Asking whether George Washington was a Marxist because he signed the Tariff Act of 1789 is like asking if Benjamin Franklin, who understood something of electricity, favored alternating or direct current to power his microwave oven.

The Founding Fathers founded America as protectionist nation.

The Founders were not monolithic in their approaches to just about anything. As far as the Tariff Act of 1789 is concerned, it was a compromise struck between those who wanted modest tariffs sufficient to fund govenrment operations only and those who wanted punitive tariffs as a means to protect their own economic interests at the expense of others.

In a mercantilist economy, a 2% tariff on incoming goods to fund basic operation makes sense given the alternatives available. A 50% tariff is simply rent seeking thievery.

[Yaelle]

One thing that the founders singled out for condemnation was “faction”, their term for political parties.

Yet we don’t hear Levin and his comrades condemning political parties. Instead they are attacking the “populism” that is doing a yeoman’s job of breaking the stranglehold that elites have put on our electoral process.

---

Levin doesn’t see it or is behind dishonest with himself. He is on a side. “Isms” don’t apply. Levin has chosen the side of an established cabal, ruled by monies from inside and outside this country, who runs us with barely any lip service to our Constitution.

And Levin has shown us so much of this cabal, and called it “statism.” I once thought it a good word for the established Uniparty of greed. Now he’s twisted it, so I throw out the word “statist.”

Clearly, now, the establishment includes both Democrat and Republican parties. It includes people who call themselves liberal, progressive, conservative, moderate. THEREFORE NONE OF THESE STANDARD TERMS APPLY.

Right now, there are two groups of top priority: the established Uniparty run by monied powers within and without the USA who work for their own global financial interest, and the People of the United States who are devoid of our Constitutional and Gd-given rights.

Our only bloodless chance at getting our country back is through the election of an independently resourced candidate who wants to fight for us.

Levin has now sided with the cabal against our best interests. Ted Cruz is dishonest and clearly, at this point, purchased by the Cabal. If Levin is intelligent he should see this. Therefore I think he is dishonest as well.

[Yaelle]

The problem with this line of thought, however, is in this.....what if the threat to liberty doesn’t come from “the mob”, but instead it comes from a group of oligarchs? So far we’ve seen federally-mandated health insurance and gay-marriage imposed - not by popular will- but by 5-out-of-9 Supreme Court Justices.

---

Bingo.

And the power of the Congress is being usurped by an oligarchy buying them out, as well. The Mob doesn’t stand a chance...

[Yaelle]

Levin’s “brand” is damaged. Rush Limbaugh was the king of conservative talk. Now we see he was doing deals AGAINST HIS AUDIENCE with people like Roger Ailes and Chuck You Schumer. He was a freaking liar all along, which kind of hurts the whole brand. The libs said Limbaugh was just schtick, but we thought we knew him to be a true patriot, and he did turn me to conservatism. How sad he used us like that.

[Yaelle]

Good point. It is all about We, the People. Yes, the actual people. We are suffering. We have lost our rights that Gd, and the constitution, gave us. SOMEONE TOOK THEM.

And for someone like Levin to call us the wrong “-ists” because we are the victims is cruel and arrogant.

Plus we pay his bills and let him find new hot chicks and stuff.

[Yaelle]

Unfortunately, the left has successfully corrupted the language with a PC culture wherein they get to dictate what is OK to say out loud. This means conservative ideas and principles will be understood as racism, selfishness, bigotry, hate and xenophobia. Defense of liberty is seen as lack of compassion for fellow man. Until this PC poisoning of the language is addressed, no outspoken conservative can be elected.

---

But you do see how Trump has woken up all of the America that isn’t racist and is sick of being called racist because they like actual sovereign borders and don’t like paying half their salary to illegal alien welfare of one kind or another. This is how we beat down that PC gate. No one else has slammed the statist control of us through PC.

Ted Cruz is now statist. I know it is hard to see because he has espoused conservative principles. But look closely. He has been forced to align with the Uniparty. Thus he is statist now, even if he wasn’t before. He was not independently resourced enough to avoid it. He wanted to be President more than he wanted to get us back our Constitution. He’s made some compromises with his morality and beliefs, if he did have them, and I’ll assume he did.

[Pelham]

I think Levin is being dishonest because he’s not stupid. He’s doing it because he’s heavily invested in seeing Cruz get the nomination and he’s getting desperate.

[odawg]

“What makes you think that he would be set on destroying the Bill of Rights?”

You just cannot be serious with that litany.

Once Trump rents the hall, it is his, it is private property, and he is the one with free speech rights. As Reagan so famously reminded a disruptor, he paid for the mike. And on other occasions, he sharply ordered them to “shut up”. Was Reagan taking away their first amendment rights?

I have seen protesters not very gently dragged out of school board meetings.

If someone uninvited came into your home, would you kick them out?

[odawg]

“The values of Free Republic are clear.

how does Trump advance the values of Free Republic?”

Why ask me? Jim Robinson founded this site, and he likes Trump. If you are so pure, maybe you should start your own.

[nathanbedford]

Not so fast, if Trump rents of venue and opens it to the public it does not become his private castle but a place of public accommodation with all the laws applicable thereunto.

In any event, no matter how you define the venue, Trump does not have the right to inflict violence or to incite violence except in self-defense or in defense of another. He does not have the right to run a gang of brownshirts beating up members of the audience. Nor does he have the right to compel silence in the audience by violence although he might have the right to remove disruptors but that is a different matter.

Trump's disgraceful comments which I have catalogued raise a well-founded fear that as president of the United States he would invoke the powers of government, not excepting physical violence, to suppress free speech. There is nothing in Donald Trump's character that suggests he warrants taking such a risk in fact everything points in the contrary direction.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"Marxism is a late 19th Century critique of economic, social and industrial manufacturing dynamics that arose 50 years after the founding of the country."

Wow, newsflash.

"I can only assume from your question that you don't understand the basic timeline of world history. The theory of Marxism is 100 years removed from the founding of the country."

I can assume by your obfuscation that you don't want to give a direct answer. You said that economic protectionism is marxism. The Founding Fathers favored economic protectionism. Where they practicing what would come to be known as marxism, and thus, marxists?

"Asking whether George Washington was a Marxist because he signed the Tariff Act of 1789 is like asking if Benjamin Franklin, who understood something of electricity, favored alternating or direct current to power his microwave oven."

No, it's not. There is no comparison to different ways of delivering electricity and a straightforward economic policy. You said that protectionism is marxist. The Founding Fathers favored this policy that you called marxist.

[Poison Pill]

I can assume by your obfuscation that you don't want to give a direct answer.

Your question is jibberish

The Founding Fathers favored economic protectionism.

Some wanted high tariffs to protect their interests and others didn't.

[Lazamataz]

Look, MLL, here’s what’s up:

The Elitist/Globalists have co-opted the Republican party. They already owned the Democrat party.

Donald Trump is not a conservative, he is a populist and nationalist. Populism draws some views from liberalism, and some from conservatism. Nationalism is important when the Elitist/Globalists want to erase borders and countries. Without borders, there is no country. With no country, there is no Constitution.

I don’t like the liberal viewpoint-draws, but I do like his stance on Illegal Immigrants and the Second Amendment. Those are my two hot-button issues.

Another angle is that Trump will be devastating to the Elitist Republicans. We need them destroyed, because right now — with a few exceptions — there is ZERO opposition to Obama’s priorities. We need an opposition party.

So, if we need to elect someone with my hot-button-issues covered, who has a few liberal viewpoints I do not share, but who will give possibility that the Republicans can once again become an opposition party..... I’ll take it.

[nathanbedford]

We now add, as I predicted some time ago, the names Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to the list of people who have to be wrong so that Donald Trump can be right. Worse, these people are not merely mistaken they are sold out.

I seriously recommend that you take the time to read or reread Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities and begin to understand the psychosis which took over the French revolution and led to a Reign of Terror. It is not too late to regain some sense of perspective.

[enumerated]

Yes! That is why I am a Trump supporter. I love his daily dose of political I correctness. Each day, he says something ‘horrible’ and heads explode. It’s like a vaccine. Each day we conservatives are a little more free to say what we think.

I concede the point that Trump is not rooted in conservative principles and doesn’t spout conservative talking points. But he has the same enemies - the left. He may not get it that government in general is the problem, but he sure hates this particular government, and seems determined to tear it down brick by brick.

After he does, perhaps he will want to replace it with a bigger better government, and we conservatives will want to be prepared to stop him in his tracks.

I think it is similar to a war time president like Washington: after he has won the war against the left, we can put him out to pasture, add him to mt Rushmore and elect a conservative who will refortify the constitution.

First we have to win a war that we are now losing badly.