The Democratic party has been absorbed by its left wing and is beginning to resemble the impotent British Labour party. Certainly it no longer is a national party. Mostly it’s a local and municipal coastal force, galvanized to promote a race and gender agenda and opposed to conservatism yet without a pragmatic alternative vision. Its dilemma is largely due to the personal success but presidential failure of Barack Obama, who moved the party leftward and yet bequeathed an electoral matrix that will deprive future national candidates of swing-state constituencies without compensating for that downside with massive minority turnouts, which were unique to Obama’s candidacy.I've seen this argument made before and it's essentially spot-on. You've probably seen this map, or something similar to it:
 |
| Blue fringe |
That's the world Trump works in at the moment. And yet some people who might otherwise support his policies are arrayed against him. Back to Hanson:
Usually conservative pundits and journalists would push back against this extraordinary effort to delegitimize a Republican president. But due to a year of Never Trump politicking and opposition, and Trump’s own in-your-face, unorthodox style and grating temperament, hundreds of Republican intellectuals and journalists, former officeholders and current politicians — who shared a common belief that Trump had no chance of winning and thus could be safely written off — find themselves without influence in either the White House or indeed in their own party, over 90 percent of which voted for Trump. In other words, the Right ruling class is still in a civil war of sorts.Hanson thus holds up a mirror to my face. I do find Trump grating. I wish he didn't speak elliptically and garble his messages. Having said that, I see no reason to sandbag him, or his administration. Up to this point, he hasn't pursued any disastrous policies, and it doesn't appear he will, based on the people he has around him. If Trump pursues policies that are contrary to the nation's interests, I will oppose him. Up to this point, he hasn't.
11 comments:
one again... i already stated before the GOP convention, that they had better unite around trump. he was the only one who would carry the states they would otherwise lose.
you need to win the elections if you want to impose your agenda. as for the never trumpers... heh... outside looking in. i told ya so. get out of your bubble and maybe spend a little more time understanding the people, and less time minding the likes of George Will.
Gino's got a point; Trump is dragging the GOP, kicking and screaming at times, to understand that they don't win without some tip of the hat to populism. Doesn't mean they need to go full Huey Long, but they need to at least acknowledge the needs of guys who aren't at the top of the food chain.
Pray for the guy, give him feedback, and see what happens.
Gino, let's avoid certain terms, please. Your comment, without the offending terminology:
not a 'tip of the hat' bubba. really work to improve our lot. but most of them cannot. the Bush/Romney wing really does believe that ****** are the future of our economy (iow... 'their' economy.)
we are ****** on the plantation for them. they've shown their true face to us repeatedly.
Maybe what we ought to be doing is quit labelling the Trump agenda as "not conservative" or "populist" or anything else, and start treating it like the simple common sense it is?
sorry, Mr D. my bad. i thought they were ok to use here in that context.
i thought they were ok to use here in that context.
Context is the key. I understand what you were saying. Others will only see the terms and could use them as a weapon.
This post highlights the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
Liberals back winners, to the hilt, against all comers. Conservatives back saints.
Since there are no saints, Conservatives never win. Even when we have a winner, we're eternally vigilant for an opportunity to dump any saint whose halo might slip.
But we're okay with that, as Conservatives. We fought the good fight, gave it the old college try, only missed it by 'that much' and that's good enough to take a break from organizing and fundraising and preaching the message to the next generation.
I will disagree only on the point that liberals back "winners." It may be true that far too often liberals win elections, but that makes losers of us all. Trump does something conservatives have been loath to do, which is to tell the truth, do what you said and what is right, drive the liberals into frothing hissy fits, and keep going. Hallelujah.
"Liberals back winners". Yup, that sure explains Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale, fer sure, along with Algore and John "Effing" Kerry. It is correct that liberals will stick with a flawed candidate long after conservatives generally give them the boot, though--support for Trump being an obvious exception.
My take is, as a conservative leaning into libertarian, is that it's simply a fact that not everybody is like me--not everyone sees the hazards of things like the deep state/administrative state and the like. Not everyone has been convinced of how bad government does many things. Hence, government will not tend to get to the point I desire.
It is sometimes said that we get the government we deserve. I find it very hard to believe that we deserve the government that has been created for us through a series of very flawed elections, dominated by ill-informed or misinformed people.
Post a Comment