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 ...
“a central bank which most “populists” regard as part of a “Judaeo-Masonic-Communist conspiracy”
How nice of you to pigeonhole populists as conspiracy cranks. Did you poll them, or is this data of the Wild Assed Guess sort?
“Actually the whole structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate populism which the framers thought of as mob rule.”
The structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate tyranny through the separation of powers.
Voting was restricted because the framers were aware that populations could be bought with government largess.
Trump voters are not the ones with hands out to the government.
Since when has orderly voting in presidential primaries become mob rule? Is the test for mob rule whenever the vote goes against your preference? Who has decreed that Trump winning elections is proof of mob rule? When Reagan won in two landslides, reflecting the will of the people (populism), was that a bad thing?
“I don’t will think you believe in the absolute power of the populist will.”
So who will appoint themselves to tell the electorate their voice should be ignored? The Establishment has already beat you to it.
“I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.”
That is BS. Trump is 69 years old. What makes you think that he would be set on destroying the Bill of Rights? History teaches that obsessive would be tyrants start out very young to accomplish their designs on society, such as the age profile of Cruz.
I think tariffs make sense, and that we will lose our nation through open borders and free trade. And I think the people pushing for, and benefiting from so called “free trade” are globalists who have no special affinity for America....yes.
1776 was “populist” too.
“Trade protectionism is marxism, yes.”
Are you being sarcastic? Karl Marx called for free trade.
Sometimes, you don’t get a good choice. Sure, you can play fantasy games like Erik Erikson, “We’re going 3rd party with a moral man!” and hand it to Hillary/Sanders, but that is worse than stupid.
Sometimes, your choice is not between Jefferson and Adams and Madison, but between Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini. Or Herod, Caligula or Nero.
That’s where we are, now. If given a choice, at gun point, of a bullet to the head, ingesting a teaspoon of cyanide, or ingesting a teaspoon of arsenic, no other options, no refusal, pick one right now or get the bullet, there actually is a logical and rational “least bad” choice.
That’s where we are. And it’d going to get much worse. We’ll have 1968-sized riots all summer and all the way through the election, if not worse than 68. We’re going to look back to March 2017 as “the good old days, when everything worked.”
Every day with electricity is a blessing. People have no idea how fast we can slip off our techno perch. Civil disorder that impacts critical infrastructure can easily cascade into a dirty civil war of disappearances and assassinations, similar to Argentina or Northern Ireland in the 70s. Or worse.
These are the good old days. Enjoy them while they last.
Now we have so called/self-proclaimed conservatives bastardizing our language to further an agenda...Just what we need,
More B.S. articles for the weak minds that DO NOT understand what is an Establishment/Globalist/Uniparty rats that do not want the slaves to leave the plantation.
Pathetic weak attempt for the weak minds that are VERY confused.
Excellent points well said.
“Political parties in America are designed to overcome the checks and balances put by the framers into the Constitution.”
Astute. Very good one.
Levin just trying to protect his brand... probably pretty concerned about the future profitability of “conservative talk” and his other products.
“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.
I listened to the Great One tonight like most nights. But I am afraid his endorsement of Cruz has locked him to a rhetorical corner. And tonight I took exception to his attempt to give Progressives and Trump supporters a common lineage.
It is axiomatic that the purpose of a constitution is to provide a legal and social framework that's larger than any one man, movement or generation. But a political movement that is driven, at least in part, by the charisma of its leader, does not imply non-constitutional government. Trump's conceptual proposals on border and homeland security can easily be implemented without constitutional violation. As we all know, Trump does not act or talk like traditional politician. Then why are his extemporaneous statements treated like white papers?
Like Mr. Levin, I have had the good fortune of working closely with good and wise men...great leaders. We are very fortunate to have the 2016 Republican finalists include both a strong conservative and a strong, charismatic business leader who loves traditional American values.
They need to find a way to bring both groups together. That would be the Presidential thing to do.
Since when do conservatives like when the government charges big taxes on stuff you want to buy (tariffs)? Screw that.
Nationalism is evil. Patriotism is for the ignorant mob.
International Progessivist Vision For The Massess:
On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
(More leisure time for artists everywhere)
A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We’ll be clean when their work is done
We’ll be eternally free yes and eternally young
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free - Donald Fagen 1981
/s
Were the Founding Fathers marxists then?
Which part of the deals is bad? I hear lots of bitching and moaning about “trade deals,” but no one is saying what the specific text of the existing deals is that’s caused what problem. I’m all ears if you want to explain it.
The closest I’ve heard to specifics is that the deals aren’t enforced when “China cheats.” So is that it? Are the deals perfectly fine but they’re just not being enforced?
Specifics, please. Not just Frankenstein blurting out “Fire bad! Trade deals bad!”
Lincoln’s first political speech:
“’Gentlemen, Fellow-Citizens: I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by my friends to become a candidate for the Legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like an “oldw woman’s dance.” I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the international improvement system and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected, I will be thankful. If defeated, it will be all the same.’”
Yep. It’s not if. It’s when.
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.