[image_credit]REUTERS/Yuri Gripas[/image_credit][image_caption]President Donald Trump[/image_caption]
Wehner has been a consistent and early never Trumper.
Four years ago, before Donald Trump had secured the Republican presidential nomination but after it had become likely he would do so, Wehner — who had worked in the White House under all three of the recent Republican presidents (Reagan and both Bushes) — spoke at the U of M’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs and declared himself a never Trumper.
(Wehner had actually already said the same in a New York Times op-ed piece, but I covered him at the Humphrey School in a 2016 never-Trumper talk, when he boiled it down to this:
Mr. Trump is a toxic figure in American politics. If you want to know how toxic he is, he has a 70 percent unfavorable rating right now. And that would make him the most disliked nominee in the history of polling. Neil Newhouse, a veteran Republican pollster, said that “In the modern polling era since World War II, there has not been a more unpopular potential presidential nominee than Donald Trump.” Mr. Trump is toxic for a reason. He is — in my estimation — nativist, xenophobic, cruel, vindictive, emotionally unstable, narcissistic, obsessive, and yet, he is without an economic agenda or a governing philosophy. He’s stunningly ignorant on issues, and he seems to be a person who’s given over to profanity and demagogy. …
Four years later (meaning Wednesday), speaking over Zoom to yet another Humphrey School/Center for the Study of Politics and Governance audience, Wehner isn’t taking any of it back. His updated portrayal of Trump’s presidency described in stark terms key differences between a proper conservative and Trump, whom he said has “upended conservatism, as I understand the term.”
Yes, conservatives got two new conservative justices on the Supreme Court, which is no small deal and has led to some rulings that conservatives like, Wehner said. But Trump is more properly understood as a populist who has stitched together some conservatism with some red meat to appeal to other elements of the electorate.
[image_caption]Peter Wehner[/image_caption]
Furthermore, the way Trump conducts himself should also offend real conservatives, Wehner said. Conservatives believe in “epistemological humility, respect for human experience, aversion to fanaticism, a belief in the complexity of human society, a belief in objective truth and a whole range of things … [whereas] a lot of what Donald Trump has done has been an assault” on conservatism and conservative philosophy. Wehner believes Trump’s personal conduct “has done great damage to conservatism and to the Republican Party. … So I don’t really consider him a conservative. I consider him a populist and an ethnic nationalist” resembling some of the populist/nationalist leaders elsewhere in the world.
In summary, Wehner said: “I think he’s actually broken with conservatism and redefined it in a negative way.”
So, in case you hadn’t already figured this out, Wehner said that although he disagrees with Joe Biden across a wide range of policy positions, he will vote for Biden in hopes of saving the country and the Republican Party from four more years of Trumpism.
That worries him too, he admitted. While he views Biden as a moderate liberal, he fears Biden will be pulled to the left by the pressures within the party. Wehner’s not happy about that, and his vote will be much more anti-Trump than pro-Biden. He hopes a Biden win will enable his party to repudiate the unsavory aspects of Trumpism in the aftermath and get back to representing honest, honorable conservatism.
U of M political scientist Larry Jacobs, who moderated the event, asked Wehner how he’ll feel if Biden wins and then does things that conservatives won’t like, such as use the next Supreme Court opening to shore up support for Roe v. Wade/legalized abortion. Wehner was ready for that and replied:
“Yes, since I intend to vote for Joe Biden I have to recognize that he will pursue some policies that I will disagree with. … There were a number of people who at the beginning of the Trump era were conservative, and they’ve given up their conservatism [in reaction against Trumpism]. I’m not one of them. So I’m not an enthusiast for Joe Biden and his agenda. He seems to be an admirable human being, and that’s important to me. But I quite agree” that Biden will advance many policies Wehner opposes.
And that worries him, because, he said: “I think the Democratic Party has moved from liberalism to progressivism. They are different and distinct things. And I believe there is a kind of illiberalism that’s increasingly powerful in the progressive movement: the ‘cancel culture,’ the so-called ‘woke politics.’”
He enumerated some areas that worry him about what the left might do:
“Abortion. Bill Clinton used to say ‘safe, legal and rare.’ You can’t say that as a Democrat any more. Socialism is much more embraced. The Democratic Party has moved far to the left. So, I will, as a writer, as a public voice, be critical of Biden ….
“But I believe that if you balance the good and the bad of Trump versus the good and the bad of Biden, I come out with the scale that’s very much in favor of Biden. And not because his policies are better. I think that Trump’s combination — really a unique combination — of ignorance and incompetence that we’re seeing manifest in this year, particularly in the COVID-19 situation. And there’s the almost nihilistic assault on truth, and the damage — the radiating damage to our civic culture. And the cruelty.
“So I just think that our country will be more injured with the Trump presidency than without it. The last thing I’ll say on this question is this:
“I think Republicans will look back on the deal that they made to get Trump and they will rue the day. I think he is doing generational damage not just to the country, but to the Republican Party and to the conservative cause. They will have gotten four years of some policy victories, plus some policy setbacks. But the price for that, in terms of how the Republican Party is seen, the damage to the generation, the toxicity that it’s introduced, I don’t think it’s gonna be a close call. That why I think that conservatives, not just for the cause of conservatism, but for the country, should vote against Donald Trump. Not because they think Joe Biden will pursue policies that are fantastic but because Donald Trump is a malicious force in American life.”
I hope I didn’t run on too long quoting Wehner. When Trump was first rising, I just assumed that a certain number of decent Republicans would rise to the rescue just based on decency. That was four years ago now. I haven’t heard too many Wehners in the intervening period. So I hope he’s not the only one thinking along lines of common decency and basic honesty heading into November.
I also have to confess that there was another member of the panel that I Zoom-covered yesterday, political scientist David Hopkins of Boston College. Hopkins spoke much less and didn’t offer his own views, playing the neutral analyst, and I’m afraid I have given him short shrift.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
While I agree with many of Mr Wehner’s observations, I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the observation that that Trump is the sole source of cruelty on the right. A quick glance at the stunning financial inequity in our country, especially just now, the merciless desire to rip back the $600 supplement from people who have to work more then one job to even hope to support themselves, and now can’t work at all; it just plain makes me sick !
The word “socialism” is just another mischaracterized “dog whistle “. I have yet to hear any of my “lefties”suggest nationalizing anything. I would like to see secondary education cost reduced to what it was in my youth instead of being just another cash-cow for the banking industry. Even the swooning conservatives probably can recognize at least a few “weaknesses” in our medical system that aren’t necessarily Trumps fault.
Peter Wehner predicts “Republicans will look back on the deal that they made to get Trump and they will rue the day. I think he is doing generational damage not just the country, but to the Republican Party and to the conservative cause.”
And that is one small thing for which we should thank Trump. Perhaps the Republican party & conservatives have finally been dragged far enough from a coherent policy & worldview that they’ll restart from scratch and engage in a thoughtful debate on how we can work together, despite different perspectives, on creating a better society.
Actually, the Republican Party has upended conservatism, and guys like Wehner stood by and watched it happen over the decades. You can’t blame the rise of Fascism in America on Trump alone, Republicans have been promoting division, anti-intellectualism, and magical thinking (i.e. all we EVER have to do is cut taxes and everything from budget woes to GDP will sort itself out) for decades.
I’m glad some Republicans are/have finally reached a line they won’t cross, but if they hadn’t walked right up to that line back in the 80’s we wouldn’t be here today. Let’s not pretend Bush and Cheney were champions of freedom and integrity, until Trump came along THEY were the worse White House we’d ever had. Pawlenty’s unalloment’s, and Daudt’s too clever by half attempt at passing veto-proof budget bills (that would have put us back into deficits) weren’t exactly the stuff of conservative brilliance.
Sometimes we can say better late than never, but the Republican party has gone so deep into the realm of reactionary politics and drank so much Fascist cool-aid that we may not get out of this without having to stand up and fight these guys. I welcome Wehner’s vote, but Trump isn’t the first Republican to wrap himself in the flag and wave the Bible.
“Socialism is much more embraced. The Democratic Party has moved far to the left. ”
Paul, as I read this I immediately thought of you and your often stated beliefs that the beyond some individuals within the party, to describe it as characteristic of the entire party is absurd.
Maybe things are a lot better than you think, or whatever….
Jon Ruff’s points are well-taken, particularly the mischaracterization of “socialism.”
Most of the people who like to call themselves “conservative” truly do not have a clue about what the term “socialism” means, and are unthinking slaves to another term they don’t understand: “free market.” The “free market” is an intellectual construct, forming the basis for an economic system that exists only in the fevered brains of a few libertarian-oriented economists, but is totally absent from real life in every civilized society of which I’m aware.
While I’m at it – and in general, I’m in agreement with Mr. Wehner’s critique of Trump and what passes for Trump “policies” since 2016 – I want to add that, like many another “conservative,” Mr. Wehner has himself mischaracterized the term “populist.” My understanding of the term is basically that of my dictionary, which describes a “populist” as “…a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.” Franklin D. Roosevelt, patrician though he may have been personally, quite effectively represented the interests of ordinary people during the Great Depression and World War 2, much to the dismay and disgust of that era’s Republican Party, the modern descendants of which are still working to dismantle the few remaining pieces of the New Deal that, nearly a century later, have become a standard part of American life. Over nearly 4 years, I’ve seen Donald Trump represent – often at some length, and with appropriate media coverage – the **prejudices** of a segment of the public, but I’ve yet to see Mr. Trump do much of anything to genuinely represent the **interests** of ordinary people.
Stimulus payments and enhanced unemployment benefits during the current crisis were the brain children of members of Congress, not Mr. Trump, and as is apparently now going to be demonstrated by Congressional Republicans who richly deserve to be eaten by wolves, having had months to refine, modify and/or extend those and other responses to the pandemic, but who have instead done nothing except complain, will apparently opt for letting some of what’s most beneficial for those “ordinary people” expire, to be replaced by several billion dollars to be funneled to defense contractor executives for new jet fighters and other bright, shiny objects that will feed no one, nor provide medical treatment to anyone who needs it.
As a former Republican in my youth, it’s my fervent hope that Donald Trump will go down in egregious, showy flames in November, and in the process, take Mitch McConnell and other Republican “leaders” with him. Doing damage to the United States, as Trump has done, while aiding our enemies, as Trump has also done, is a textbook definition of “treason” for which I think Trump eminently qualifies.
If Mr. Wehner thinks that Biden winning will end Trumpism, he continues to suffer from magical thinking. Trump and his cult will not go away if they lose the election. They are the GOP now. The last four years has taught me that the GOP I once supported is long dead. The fascists, racists, bigots, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists have a homeland in the GOP. They aren’t going to give up what they fought so hard for.
If traditional conservatives want to start over, they’ll need to do it outside of the GOP. I’m listening.
Also, I don’t think the dems have moved all that far to the left. It only looks like that because the GOP has moved to kooky levels, demon seed and alien DNA included, to the right. The GOP has ceded futile ground in the middle by lurching a couple of standard deviations out of the bell curve. The GOP has only themselves to thank for the that.
I would like to agree with all these points, but wonder what would happen if Trump tomorrow says:
“I’m outta here, your not going to have Donald Trump to kick around anymore”
Do all the Lincoln Project types immediately return to the GOP fold? Do all the Trumpian loyalists forget the man’s name, tuck their heads and just try to hang on to their jobs (Lindsey Graham as poster child).
Does the inevitable post Trump GOP Kumbaya moment within their leadership move down to the voters?
The deplorables have no place to go and the rest may yearn so much for good old Bush Republicanism that they return to the fold.
Maybe the lasting Trump legacy is 2% of the far right moving on to the white supremacist party of their choice and 2% on the left end of the right moving over to the D column.
And maybe that is enough to create a lasting D majority government? Maybe…
Reading the 2016 excerpt, I thought Wehner was right on, and then shifted to the thought often expressed here; “How could so many people then, and especially now, continue to support such a despicable, sadistic, and dangerous man?” But, and Mr’s Ruff, Udstrand, and Schoch quickly pointed it out, Wehner also comes from a group that prioritizes profits over trying to take care of basic human needs like shelter, food, and health care. He wants to do it in a more gentlemanly fashion but “free trade” and “fiscal conservatism” means minimum wages, union suppression, lack of public housing, tilting the field toward private education, tax breaks for the wealthy, relaxed environmental regulations, etc. But, I do think agree that those battles need to be fought another day. Right now, I can’t look through a daily paper and not find several things Trump has said or done that anger me; and, more importantly, make me really worried for our country. I’ll take any allies we can get for November.
Based on Mr Wehner’s definition of conservatism, he worked for 3 administrations that had nothing to do with that term. Reagan and both Bushes spent like drunken sailors and ran up big piles of debt. All 3 also bombed every nation they could find so no morality in any of their foreign policies.
If Mr Wehner’s definition is accurate then there hasn’t been a Conservative President since Eisenhower.
Trump is not a conservative. He’s been a Democrat for at least as long as he has been a Republican. Almost all of his policies suck. The few good planks he did have vanished from his platform the night he won election. He deserves to lose. But Biden has zero chance of beating him and would be an epic disaster of a President. In fact, he would likely be out within 6 months due to his mental health issues. The man is not even fit to be President.
Bob Barnes, the last (true) conservative in America!
Bob Barnes, the only true Scotsman, in fact…
And the only reason Eisenhower is quoted is that it was long ago and likely before Bob/Conor’s birth.
Of course if you look at the actual data, Ike was no shining star either.
And, just to irritate all of our right wing friends out there, if debt to GDP is the measure, the best performing President since WW2:
Drum roll please……
Jimmy Carter
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
The last balanced budget (and surplus ) happened under Eisenhower. Clinton never once had a surplus as he always had a deficit.
Eisenhower warned us of the MIC and about having science beholden to govt. he was right on both counts. He was the closest thing to a Conservative in recent times without going back to Harding and Coolidge.
Sorry Bob, wrong again:
“Clinton had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998-2001, the only such years from 1970-2018. Clinton’s final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget. The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000”
But, I will give you extra points for your renouncement of government sponsored science denial.
I know Joe Biden looks forward to your support of his “follow the science” agenda.
Harding was a drunken puppet of oligarchs, fitting that you find him heroic…
You might want to try again about that “last conservative” bit. President Eisenhower was responsible for the largest public works project in history (the Interstate Highway System) and escalated the Cold War. He kept the federal deficit low by keeping taxes high, especially on the wealthiest taxpayers (top marginal tax rate of 90%).
Bernie Sanders has said that he isn’t “that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower”.
And as I remember (I was in my early teens at the time) Eisenhower was willing to run for whichever party wanted him the most — hardly a dedicated conservative Republican.
” In fact, he would likely be out within 6 months due to his mental health issues.” Yes, unlike the sociopath in the White House now, Joe has all those mental health issues. Not a rock of stability who feels the need to explain how he drinks a glass of water for 10 minutes; or muses about injesting poison to battle the viruse; or brags incessantly about being able to repeat 5 words; or I could go on and on.
Biden is basically a good man who will actually care about the country and will surround himself with capable experts and not corrupt sycophants like Pompeo, Barr, Miller, and least I forget, son-in-laws. Be looking forward to the change even If Biden has zero change.
Thanks for the chuckle. Biden a good man? Too funny. 50 years of corruption and you call him a good man.
A lot of vague allegations; little fact.
Trump has committed more corrupt acts in four years than Biden did in 50.
Oh, and Biden actually won elections.
And you know what, Bob? When your conception of the word “conservative” excludes 99% of the people who describe themselves as such, then you’re the one who has trouble defining the term, not them.
I was using the cited subject’s own definition. He’s just another hypocrite looking for 15 more minutes of fame. He claims Trump isn’t a conservative but then offers a definition that clearly makes Wehner himself not a Conservative either. That same definition also shows none of the 3 Republican Presidents he worked for were Conservatives either.
That conservative pool is getting smaller and smaller.
Congrats to EB, who after much searching (likely hither and yon), has found an actual, living Never-Trumper specimen, one that says he will actually vote for Biden, of all things. It’s sort of like seeing an Ivory Billed Woodpecker!
One can’t help but note the various delusional elements in Wehner’s paen to conservatism, which has been an anti-science, anti-democracy and anti-reason movement for a very, very long time now. Its candidates have been spewers of grotesque lies about public finance, the environment, and (phony) threats to our national security for decades. The right’s supreme court nominees have been outside the mainstream of traditional American legal thought since the days of Antonin Scalia’s nomination. The movement’s alliance with and celebration of the creator of Hate Radio, Rush Limbaugh (and his endless disciples), reveals that Trump is far from being the first sadistic and cruel “conservative”. Cheney and his torture regime was also quite sadistic and anti-American. These pathologies did not miraculously start with Trumpolini.
Sure, Trumpolini is taking a number of non-orthodox positions for a “conservative”. But there’s no real doubt that in reckless fiscal policy (where Wehner is particularly delusional), wholesale business deregulation, environmental ruination (especially climate), bloated defense spending, extremist judges, gun “rights” insanity, and hatred of Big (i.e. effective) Government (Covid crisis, anyone?) and social welfare programs, Trump is a standard “conservative”, identical to the workings of Cheney/Dubya and the proposals of plutocrat Romney.
Where Trump differs with orthodox conservatism is mostly in his amateurish and narcissistic foreign policy, where his goal is the unilateral destruction of NATO and subordination of policy to Tsar Putin. But traditional “conservatism” has also loved autocrats, as long as they do our bidding. Only when they don’t do they need to experience a little “democratization”, ala Saddam.
I will grant that another slight difference is that Trump is an actual conman, who is engaging in a massive grift of the system to aid his crappy Trump & Sons businesses.
The reality is that democracy-destroying Trumpism is simply the logical endpoint of where American “conservatism” was always headed over the past 40 years, and a tiny insignificant handful of elite Never-Trumpers probably won’t affect a single vote at this stage of the game, except maybe their spouses. Indeed, I view this protest vote and public stance by Mr Wehner as simply positioning himself as the advance guard of “conservative” rehabilitation. Because “conservatism” cannot fail, it can only be failed. But perhaps future forums will address how Never Trumpers will view the next candidate of American fascis….er, Trumpism, Tom Cotton (R-MO).
“I think Republicans will look back on the deal that they made to get Trump and they will rue the day.”
At the risk of repeating Paul, BK and others above, the “deal” the Republicans made to get Trump, they made some 50 years ago. I appreciate the Never Trumpers taking a laboring oar to help dislodge Trump but, really, how much more of this twaddle can we take?
Trump did not “upend conservatism.” As BK notes, “conservatism” has led directly to Trump. Trump is nothing more than an expression of the Republican base of authoritarian followers that “conservatives” spent 50 years cultivating and that gives him still, with near unanimity, its cultlike fealty. This makes the equating of Trump and conservatism almost a tautology.
A very few Never Trumpers, admirably, have conceded their role in creating Trump thru a lifetime of professional labors in the Republican trenches, and have expressed remorse in some measure. The majority of Never Trumpers, though, are aiming instead to do just what Mr. Wehner appears to be doing: reinforce the narrative that Trump is an aberration. If they succeed, they both escape responsibility for their years of professional and ideological dereliction, and preserve the Republican party to prosper again as soon as Trump is pared from the Republican organism with an electoral scalpel. In which case, in four years we surely will find ourselves in a far worse place: under the thumb of a Republican party with a far more competent set of authoritarians at the helm.
We need a third party option. It will never happen until you take the money out of politics. Which will also never happen. I fear we are doomed. Democrats are indeed moving far left, Republicans have been far right since Newt declared the Contract for America is the way to go. A third part would force one of these two horrible options to more to the middle. BTW, that’s where most people are these days
Betsey I suggest you take an honest look at Democratic policies, the actual policies the party supports, rather than what you are told they support. An honest look at policies and an honest look at what the American people support will show you that Democrats sit right where most of the country sits, if not a little more to the right. For instance despite 85% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans supporting Medicare for All, its not part of the Democratic platform. Looking at the polls its not a radical position, but still not on the Democrat’s list. Take another “far left” position Marijuana legalization, 67% of the American people support it, including 44% of Republicans. So a quick look at the Democrat “far left” party, oops no Marijuana legalization on the platform. Funny eh? It seems like the real radical lefties in the country are the American people, not the Democrats. I could go on, but you get the picture. I suggest you take off those blinders and take a honest look at where the Democratic party really is. Remember, all the good things in this country, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, paid sick, vacation, a 40 hour work week, all came from the left and are still opposed by the right. We don’t need a third party, we need a Democratic party that more closely resembles the will of the people.
Wehner says nothing about Trump’s religious bigotry and racism, only alluding to “ethnic nationalism,” whatever that is. (Unless it was unreported which seems doubtful.) He could have said white nationalism. One suspects that he and other never-Trumpers don’t want to offend the always-Trumpers whose association will be necessary if the party ever needs to rebound from the wilderness. If the “true conservatives” retake the party they’ll still need the deplorables. They should instead start from scratch, a new party. Whigs, Bull Moose, Party of Lincoln — lots of names waiting ready to suit up.
This morning’s NY Times has an excerpt from long-time Republican operative Stuart Stevens’s book “It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump.” Mr. Stevens makes the point many on the left have been making for some time now: Trump is not an aberration, but the logical culmination of the last 50 years of the Republican Party, “a natural product of the seeds of race-baiting, self-deception and anger that now dominate it.”
The modern “conservative” in America is defined by the things they are against. Despite the platitudes to small government and fiscal responsibility that come from the GOP, the real campaigns are against: against “political correctness,” against creeping secularism, against the “erosion” of the traditional family. Candidates and functionaries will mouth pieties about focusing on jobs and the economy, rather than social issues, but it’s the social issues that are regularly trotted out to motivate the supporters. The divisiveness is the point.
To some extent, it works. We see self-proclaimed former Democrats angrily huffing about how this “push for equality” is not going to end “until the government writes a check to every black person in the country.” Rep. Hagedorn’s thinly disguised racism is not likely to cost him any votes. Is Senator Cotton going to suffer any setbacks for calling both slavery and the Shoah “necessary evils?” Too many voters have let themselves be distracted by this rhetoric, and the Republican Party has seen no need to tamper with its success.
It’s so very illuminating to see leftists holding hands with desperate neo-cons and dancing around the Maypole. It just proves how badly the GOP needed a good hosing out.
Agreement on one issue does not constitute “holding hands.” In this case, it’s recognizing a fact which should be obvious to anyone with any sense at all.
Republicans may demand ideological purity and absolute fealty to the Great Helmsman. Those of us who think for ourselves do it differently.
Cotton’s reference to “necessary evils” was something that was talked about in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. The question about bringing slavery to an end by the Federalists was literally off the table in congress so that southern plantation owners could have time to improve their financial lot. However, they became addicted to slavery and it took until the 1860’s before the North and the South went to war. I am anything but a Republican, but Cotton’s comments were based on language used in Joseph J. Ellis’ New York Times best seller, “Founding Brothers”, which documents several relationships between the northern Federalists and the southern Democratic Republicans of the period.
The book is an academic masterpiece written by a historian who reported in an objective manner about the period. For anyone interested in Revolutionary Period history, and the early period of U.S. presidents and members of congress, this is a must read. It was necessary, however, for the northern factions to put their foot down to the immorality of slavery, and it came to a civil war. Cotton objected to the “fake news” as he called it, as he was quoting from history. I don’t know what his personal views are about slavery; my view is that it was wrong and that the plantation owners should have found another way to support their businesses.
The fact that a term was “talked about in the late 1700s and early 1800s” does not mean it was correct. Cotton was not simply making an observation about how slavery was seen by those in the (rather distant) Antebellum past.
No, white nationalist Cotton apparently thinks that it is correct, accurate, true, proper, etc to think that slavery was a “necessary evil”, meaning we as a nation had literally no choice but to embrace it, protect it, advance it. This is simply being an apologist for slavery, of all things. At a time when racial justice is (again) a huge national issue!
The fact that many people (in a slave-holding society) 200 years ago held to this crap does not mean a privileged, Ivy-League educated man in 2020 is justified in holding the same (appalling) view. Cotton is a disgrace to the nation.
What may have seemed “necessary” in the late 18th century now is recognized as just evil. Would it have been better to fight slavery then, even at the price of letting some of the original 13 states go?
There is also his comment that the Shoah was a “necessary evil” as the first step towards founding Israel, which he believes/says publicly is necessary for the fulfillment of his eschatological fantasies.
Lot of conservatives believed conservatism needed upending. Trump is dragging the busted, old, Neo-cons into the new 21st century, and many of them do not like it. #sad
So in other words, you agree that Trump is not an aberration in “conservativism”, but is instead dragging what had become an apostasy back to the True Faith.
Thanks for confirming this. Hose away!
“The modern “conservative” in America is defined by the things they are against.”
People that constrain their news feed to leftist media can be forgiven for that misconception, but misconception it is.
Conservatives are for:
*Stable, nuclear families
*Strict budgeting (no deficit spending)
*Secure borders and merit based immigration
*Freedom of speech, however annoying that may be to some
*A return to academically focused school curriculum (ie; ridding the classrooms of leftist special interests)
*Equal treatment under the law
*Holding parents responsible for the care of their own children
*Safety and security for Americans at home and abroad
Thanks kindly. One point is fantastical economic nonsense (no deficit spending). 2 are simply statements of existing constitutional rights which do not admit of policy. One is a banal truism (safety and security) and 5 of the 8 deal with the culture wars, which is apparently the animating force of True Conservatism in your mind. It also implies interference in family life by gubmint
Pretty thin soup after 40 years.
I’m far too polite to say what your post really is. I’m sure bovine males did not enter into it at all.
I’m not going to waste my time going through each point, even though some of them are hysterically funny (freedom of speech! That’s why we call the press the enemy of the people!). I will confine myself to pointing out that all you have set out are empty platitudes or slogans. Virtually any candidate could say they are in favor of all of these things, even though there could be argument on details
Some years ago, P.J. O’Rourke wrote an article that said that the first test of a meaningful speech is that someone could arguer against it. His specific example was that a person could argue that we have something to fear other than fear itself. Applying that test to your comment, and I come up empty. Is there anyone who will say that they oppose “equal justice for all?” Or “freedom of speech?” You may disagree with how others interpret some of these (“Why can’t I say the N word without being criticized? Them there rappers do!”), but it doesn’t make them opposed to the general principle.
Conservatives are supporting a crude, nihilist for no better reason that they like his nihilism (even if they have no clue what it means). That’s all there is.
“Is there anyone who will say that they oppose “equal justice for all?”
That’s pretty funny, considering leftists in Minnesota and elsewhere have uniformly convicted the MPD cops before they have had their day in court. “Innocent until proven guilty” used to be the cornerstone of American jurisprudence…in the current year it’s just another monument to be torn off it’s pedestal.
Tell you what, RB. Let’s put that one on the shelf until after the acquittals, and see if we can find one lefty that is willing to step up and say “the jury has spoken”.
“Or “freedom of speech?””
lol. It hasn’t gone without notice among we dissidents that the left has created a little thing they call “hate speech”, and have declared it to be outside the bounds of the 1st amendment. “Hate speech” is something that causes a violent physical and mental reactions in leftists, not at all unlike those seen among Oceania’s Inner Party members being exposed to video starring Emmanuel Goldstein.
Not only have they made the declaration, they’ve been acting on it with vigor. I could belabor the thread with hundreds of examples, but we both know I’m right.
This is what your overarching conception of “conservatism” devolves down to? Indignation over an (ongoing) criminal trial of some coppers in MN and anger that some speech can be characterized (and punished) as Hate Speech? I had no idea that the soup was this thin!
You have no idea what every liberal thinks about the prosecutions of the 4 coppers, nor do you “know” what the result will be, so no need to worry about any pedestals yet. I’m sure you’re aware (since you are following it so closely) that some of the coppers have different arguments than Chauvin. What happens to your parade of liberal horrors if the judge grants the motions to dismiss or (as is likely) the jury finds the 3 “onlooking” cops not guilty? There has been exactly one copper convicted of murder in MN history and now it’s clear that liberals have opened the floodgates of unequal justice against the poor coppers? And how could the results of one police brutality case really demonstrate the end of “equal justice for all”? Especially when you are already predicting acquittal, which shows you actually have faith in the system? Get a grip, man! If we have to sit and watch “conservative” manipulations of “equal justice for all” in the Flynn case, then you can certainly sit and watch the Floyd trials…
As for hate speech, I’m pretty sure that the “conservative”-dominated US Supreme Court has said that it can be constitutionally regulated and punished. If that’ dead wrong then a number of “conservative” justices were wrong. But the bigger picture is that First Amendment speech rights have never been thought “absolute”, and many, many restrictions have existed on speech, literally for centuries. And is Cryin’ the Blues for Hate Speech[!] now a major pillar of “conservatism”? Really?
Finally (somewhat hilariously), First Amendment absolutism was historically the “liberal” position!
“As for hate speech, I’m pretty sure that the “conservative”-dominated US Supreme Court has said that it can be constitutionally regulated and punished.”
BK, on Jun 19, 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment.
We have not yet reached the point where Double Plus Bad talk or Wrong Think will get one dragged off to the Ministry of Love for reconditioning.
Thanks for correcting me on this, Curtis, much obliged. I was definitely wrong here; I confused hate speech with hate crimes–which the Supreme Court has (so far, sort of) decided can be punished without violating the First Amendment. Of course, the democratically-illegitimate 5 man “conservative” Trump majority may rule differently on hate crimes in the near future; something for you to look forward to!
Anyway, you caught me on this one, but I still have to ask: you really claim that a critical tenet of today’s “conservatism” is eradicating the “speech codes” of some private colleges? (Speech codes at public universities would already be unconstitutional under the case you referred to.) That “issue” might be important to a few (reactionary) college guys who want to insult feminists or women of color in some prerequisite sociology class or at a frat party, or send around some anonymous hate-filled “flyer”, but as a major plank of 21st Century “conservatism”? It’s now starting to sound like the conservative soup is thinner than chicken broth! Talk about going out not with a bang, but with a whimper….
It seems there is a misunderstanding of the limits of our rights. You and I have the right to criticise the President, and argue for his political defeat. But we do not have the right to argue for his assassination – that is not protected speech. Similarly, arguing for the conviction of MPD officers for the murder of George Floyd is protected speech. Yet, despite the SCOTUS ruling that money equals speech, trying to bribe the judge or jurors to convict the officers is NOT protected speech.
As an aside, the killing of George Floyd is also not protected speech; nor is it justifiable in the line of duty. Yet, somehow, coservatives wind themselves into a tizzy when anyone ctiticizes the cops while ignoring the rights of the man who was choked to death by officers sworn to protect us and uphold our rights. Half the bill of rights is designed to protect us from intrusive, overbearing government, but when the victim is a black man, conservatives consistently look the other way.
I guess it was only a matter of time before the rightists started standing up for the poor, beleaguered Minneapolis cops.
The fact that many hold strident opinions on their guilt that are inconvenient for your viewpoint doesn’t diminish the fact that they are still going to trial, and will face on punishment unless they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They are being afforded the full protections of the 4th through 8th AMendments, just like anyone else.
As far as free speech goes, has the Great Helmsman referred to the press as the “enemy of the people” lately? Or is he too busy trying to ban Tik Tok because he got pranked at Trumpapalooza in Tulsa? That show every bit as much disregard for free speech as the people who bawl you out for saying the “N” word, even though those rappers in their baggy pants can say it.
I’m not “standing up” for them. I’m merely pointing out the indisputable fact that the vast majority of leftists have found them guilty (and are calling in some cases for the death penalty to be imposed forthwith).
I point it out to put your proposition that leftists wouldn’t challenge the concept of “equal protection under the law” to the test, and nothing more. It failed.
Let’s play the favorite song of conservatives: What about Hilary? How many conservatives were convinced that she was guilty even after days of hearings conducted by a Republican hack could come up with nothing to pin on her? Is “lock her up” no longer chanted at Trump rallies?
I remember one commentator here – one who now proclaims smugly that he is in favor of “equal justice for all” and who said he had a “high regard” for our judicial system – say that Senator Clinton should be hauled into court so it could be determined if her actions were truly criminal or merely negligent. Never mind there presumption of innocence, never mind the burden of proof: She was guilty! It’s just a question of what she is guilty of.
Have you ever in your life seen anything like that, Mr. Senker?
I have actually seen something like that, RB. I remember seeing something like “whataboutism is a weak response”, several times in fact, in comment threads right here at Minnpost.
But to your point, saying that Senator Clinton should be hauled into court so it could be determined if her actions were truly criminal or merely negligent is an epitome of equal justice.
Clinton didn’t get her day in court, and neither did the citizens of America. Many believe she was given a walk because her political affiliations meshed with the leadership in the DOJ and FBI at the time. All sides deserved to hear the facts, that’s equal justice.; it was denied and *that* is what “lock her up” means.
Many believe that a person should not be hauled into court unless there is probable cause to believe that he or she has committed an offense. “Probable cause” is not measured by the volume of shrieking on right-wing media outlets.
Many also believe that, no matter who it is, if and when they are hauled into court it is the government’s obligation to prove every element of the offense with which they were charged. That is the starting point. It would have been up to the federal government to prove if her state of mind, whether “criminal” or merely negligent, was sufficient to justify convicting her of a crime (try Googling “mens rea” sometime).
We haul people into court solely to determine if they are guilty of a criminal offense. It is not to vindicate the right of the people to kn ow what the officials of government have done, or to find some abstract “truth.” Can the government prove this person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
More general “truth” finding can be the job of the legislative branch, which can hold investigatory hearings. It seems they did this with the Clinton matter, and came up dry each time. That, of course, didn’t make the “equal justice” chants of “lock her up” subside.
“All sides deserved to hear the facts, that’s equal justice.; it was denied and *that* is what ‘lock her up’ means.”
With all due respect, sir, that’s a load of crap. “Lock her up” is a call for vengeance against an enemy of Trump and a convenient bete noire of the right wing masses. It has nothing to do with justice.
“ It seems they did this with the Clinton matter, and came up dry each time.”
Now, I know you were paying attention at the time, so you must remember Comey said the FBI determined HRC, and I quote “put national security in jeopardy”.
He further detailed behavior that would have, and has been enough to send others to prison; destroying evidence for instance. He excused it by creating an “intent” clause that does not exist in the federal statute. There was more than enough probable cause.
It’s not for you, or I to determine her guilt or innocence in comment threads; thats a job for a judge and jury. Equal justice demands it.
A federal court recently overturned the death sentence of the Boston Marathon bomber, sending it back to court for a retrial of the sentencing phase. President Trump quickly advoted for imposing the death penalty. Was President Trump justified in doing so?
Similarly, President Trump continues to advocate for the death penalty for the “central park 5” who served many years in prison after a wrongful conviction of which they’ve subsequently been exonerated. Is President Trump justified in arguing for their deaths?
I’m an opponent of the death sentence in all cases, so you’re asking the wrong guy.
Curtis, the point is not about the death penalty, it is about your criticism that “leftists in Minnesota and elsewhere have uniformly convicted the MPD cops before they have had their day in court.”
If it’s unfair for “leftists” to “convict” the former MPD officers before they’ve had their day in court, does the same standard apply to President Trump?
And surely you’d also agree that it was unfair for the cops to execute Mr Floyd without trial. Right?
I don’t agree Floyd was executed. And frankly, from what I’ve seen on the body cam recordings, I’m confident a jury won’t either.
But we won’t know either way, until the cops have their day in court and all the evidence is heard, and I’m perfectly content to wait until they do.
Just curious Curtis. Why isn’t Hillary in jail? You’ve already convicted her (for good reason I’m sure).
Or maybe it’s only conservatives that are innocent until proven guilty?
She’s not in jail, because the DOJ didn’t charge her so she was never brought to trial. However, neither has she been exonerated; Justice was not served.
Conservatives are for:
*Stable, nuclear families
–And liberals are not? There may be disagreements on how to get to that, but conservatives do not own the nuclear family.
*Strict budgeting (no deficit spending)
–Then you better throw in with the liberals because they have a much better record than any R President or Congress.
*Secure borders and merit based immigration
— We had a good framework for that several years ago and the Rs ran away for fear of alienating their right side fringe.
*Freedom of speech, however annoying that may be to some
— Yes, tell that to the peaceful protesters in Lafayette square.
*A return to academically focused school curriculum (ie; ridding the classrooms of leftist special interests)
— You vote in local school board elections don’t you? Why do you want to exercise federal control over local decisions?
*Equal treatment under the law
— Tell that to the guy with the knee on his neck
*Holding parents responsible for the care of their own children
–Even when that care put’s the children at risk?
*Safety and security for Americans at home and abroad
–Probably never been safer than right now becuase nobody can go anywhere any more thanks to incompetent COVID response.
“Stable, nuclear families”
That one got a spit take from me. The Great Helmsman has cheated on each of his three wives, yet he is the standard bearer of the party that believes in “stable, nuclear families.”
So basically inserting government (cuz you ain’t gonna enforce your conservative social engineering with polite requests after all) into every living, bed, and (probably bath) room in America. Sounds positively dystopian…
Curtis, I don’t know any liberals who are unaware of these conservative “principles”. The problem is that in practice, these principles suck, and the majority of Americans reject the way conservatives try to enforce them.
Sure, in theory we could have some common ground, free speech for instance. However in practice Republican’s send storm troopers out to squash free speech so their president can walk across the street and wave a bible in front of the cameras. The problem isn’t so much conservative “principles” the problem is that conservative have no coherent understanding of the principles they claim to promote, and when conservatives try to promote these “values” they invariably resort to oppression and coercion that inflicts unnecessary suffering and harm on their fellow citizens.
Some of the principles in an of themselves aren’t “bad”. But when conservatives decide that lies and subterfuge, and propaganda are legitimate politics, you’re attacking our freedoms, not defending them. Conservatives literally live in a world of Orwellian double speak. This speech may be Constitutionally protected, but that doesn’t mean it’s legitimate or constructive. On the contrary, if conservatives are ever allowed to achieve their vision, the US Constitution will be left in tatters and our Democracy will be converted into a Fascist state.
No ‘true’ Scotsman would…
You know, it has to be noted that our two Guardians of Conservatism have a somewhat hilarious divergence of opinion here.
Mr Barnes boldly assures us that “Trump is not a conservative”, and imagines him to be as much Dem as Repub, “almost all of [whose] policies suck”. Mr. Senker, on the other hand, sees Trump as the long-sought vindicator of the Old Believers, bravely “dragging the busted, old Neo-cons into the new 21st Century”, much against their will. It seems that both gentlemen see themselves as True Conservatives, but it goes without saying that both views of Herr Trumpolini cannot be correct.
My take is that at this point in the Conservative Crack-up, the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Heresy is everywhere, the Holy Scriptures have been lost, and orthodoxy has collapsed. It’s every man for himself!
I am not a Conservative. I’m an Anarchro Capitalist.
Trump is just the Conservative part of the party trying to rid the party of the likes of Rove, Cheney, Bush, Romney et al. The group that ran in 2015/16 were basically all more of the same war mongers that wanted to spend like crazy, bomb everyone that didn’t agree with us and continue to drive this nation into totalitarianism. Yes, that includes Ted Cruz, who voted for the upgraded version of the Patriot Act. Only Trump ran on different Ideas. He had a few really good ideas too but they vanished moments after he won and have never been seen since.
The Republican Party got Trump because they had gone too far down the path Democrats paved before them. Unfortunately even as a non politician, Trump didn’t stick to his most important promises. Now he’s just like the rest but less refined.
Unfortunately there are no Goldwaters, Hardings, Coolidges, or even Eisenhowers around these days. It’s all big govt war mongers in both parties. Doesn’t matter which party wins, debt keeps rising, spending keeps rising, regulations keep piling on, govt control keeps increasing and the American people keep falling farther behind.
Ha, a feudalist then huh? Or perhaps you think you’ve deciphered the means of preventing your worldview from devolving into such after the previous several millennia of trying?
Stay with me here a little bit,
“I’m an Anarchro Capitalist.”
I’m trying to wrap my head around a genetic engineering experiment that builds the Bob Barnes / William Hunter Duncan progeny.
Anarchism
Anarchism is a political philosophy that aims to create a society without unjust political, economic or social hierarchies with the the goal of maximising individual liberty and social equality
Capitalism
Central characteristics of capitalism include private property and the recognition of property rights, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets
Add the two together and we may get:
Peace loving
War avoiding
Environmental respecting
Liberty enjoying
Social equalizing
Garden owning
And rich…
I think we may have a breakthrough here!
Where do we sign up?
Hmm, if only we could read everyone’s thoughts, to ensure cheaters never prosper in such a utopia…
Bob, thanks for your explanation of your politics, it is helpful if one is to have a meaningful discussion. As you may have guessed, I call myself a Progressive, meaning that the policies advocated by the Dem party’s platform always seem a bit too moderate for me.
I think I understand your label, although it’s a new term to me. I will say, however, that a preference for isolationism and unregulated capitalism places you solidly on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum, and most people reading your (many) comments at Minnpost would describe your political views as falling within the bounds of American “conservatism”. I certainly do.
You know, of course, that a large segment of the left is appalled by our nation’s fealty to the MIC and is well aware of Eisenhower’s Prophecy, which long ago came to fruition. Progressives, by and large, are utterly opposed to the inconceivable waste of national treasure on the bloated military, and Dems are the only party that would be willing to cut such spending. That’s what Bernie and Warren would have tried to do. But if you vote for a Repub, you are categorically voting for more wasteful defense spending. (Cue for WHD to come in and blast me with the observation that there is “absolutely no difference between the parties on this point!”) In any event, this is an enormous area in which we both agree. There can be no national progress unless we stop pouring money down the “defense” rat-hole.
Your idea that the Dem party are the real warmongers is unfortunately incoherent and certainly not borne out by the history of the past, say, 20 years. The idea that America’s wars of the 21st Century were caused by following some Dem “path” is perverse and not based in reality. I suppose you will point to FDR and WWII and your (apparent) hero Eisenhower as the basis for your “Path of the Dems” argument, but to pin the Neo-cons’ wars on the American left (or Vietnam for that matter) is ridiculous. The most that can be said is that too many Dems went along with the 21st Century’s Wars of Conservatism.
But to hold the bankrupt, long intellectually-dead Calvin Coolidge and Harding up as national icons[!] unfortunately is crank level, as is the idea that capitalism should exist unfettered and unregulated. That condition basically almost destroyed capitalism in the 30s and there is no nation on earth that practices unregulated capitalism as a result. Why? Because economic thought has relegated such an idea to crank level. As is the idea that a government should never run deficits; Keynes put that failed nonsense on the junk heap forever, and you are wasting your intellect holding onto such absurd fantasies.
Finally, it doesn’t seem to me that you have been able to really situate the Trump phenomenon. You say he “isn’t a conservative”, but that he is also “just the conservative part of the party trying to rid the party of Rove, Cheney”, etc Those two ideas can’t really coexist; they both can’t describe Trumpolini. The idea that he is simply the logical endpoint of “conservatism” seems much more defensible, based on actual reality and Trump’s actual political supporters (90+% of MN “Repubs”). In fact, I assume you will not sit out the election as an Anarcho Capitalist, and will instead cast a ballot for Trump. And in ordinary parlance that means you “support” him, despite your protestations–just as I will be “supporting” Biden. Of course, I’m not embarrassed to say that, whereas you should be!
You sure you don’t mean ‘anachro’?
This is how Merriam-Webster defines anarchy:
“absence or denial of any authority, established order, or ruling power”
Anyone who thinks the biggest problem with Trump is that he’s devolved into just another politician, has a seriously damaged connection with reality.
Any coherent observation of the Republican/conservative project over the last few decades reveals that whenever these guys get into power, they magnify and exacerbate all of the problems they claim to be opposing. The more Trump has pursued his “promises” the worse things get for Americans. Trump isn’t making anything “great”, nor could he. Anyone who believe that the greatest threat to our democracy and free society is actually our salvation may well be dangerously deluded.
Bob, your political philosophy works great in science fiction stories, but is not compatible with the realities we see in early 21st Century United States or any other Western nation. It works great when everyone has enough economic power to eat, reside, and cover their healthcare, but not in a world where we need to have some group develop roads, manifest seaports, etc. Anachro-capitalism, if it came to be, would create warring among peoples more rampant that what we currently see with the U.S. military and other national militaries which were convened to put an end to regional squabbles involving violence. I find it and your conversation about it to be sensationalistic and not based in a strong reality. Anachro-capitalism may have been used in ancient budding civilizations. It has no place in a world where we have 7.6 billion human inhabitants coexisting in close quarters.
“I am not a Conservative. I’m an Anarchro Capitalist.”
If you’re not a conservative, why do you care about conservative apostasy?
A reply to Betsy Larey won’t queue up, so I’m posting this way.
Betsy Larey wrote, “We need a third party option. It will never happen until you take the money out of politics.”
A third party will rarely have any success in partisan elections as long as they’re winner-take-all. The election system(s) have to change to a different method such as (but not limited to) Instant Runoff Voting for single-winner races or Proportional Representation for board, council, or legislative seats where there are many people elected.
There are two ways that a third-party could gain traction under our present system.
First, the party has to be built from the ground up. Candidates need to run for city council, for school board, for state legislature–the uncool offices. Vanity campaigns for the top of the ticket may make a splash and occasionally succeed (e.g. Jesse Ventura), but they do nothing for long-term party building.
Second, a third-party should stand for something. “We’re neither Democrats nor Republicans” has some superficial appeal, but then what? Where does it go from there?
None of the advocates for a third-party seem to want to put in the work, so it’s going to stay two parties in the USA.
Somebody has to keep reminding us all: Donald Trump is not a normal president. He is an exception to any tradition or party legacy the United States has ever had. No president has been so unqualified, unfit, mentally chaotic, corrupt and dictatorial in his leanings and actions as this man.
We cannot let anyone “normalize” Donald Trump. He’s not a Republican, not a Democrat. He’s himself, and the Republican party that sponsors him has given up any pretense of trying to control his very basest and self-serving of intentions and actions.
I think recognizing the fact that Fascism has arrived in the White House, Congress, and many State capitols is the first step towards avoiding “normalization”. All of these attempts to rehabilitate Republicans and deny their real agenda have just promoted increased reactionary extremism. This is no longer a “normal” political Party, and these are not “normal” politicians.
Sure, these fact make a lot of “liberals” uncomfortable, but pursuing comfort zones with psychological gymnastics rather than concrete political change and confrontation is a recipe for suicide.
Re: Budget surplus – 1998 to 2001
John Kasich took credit along with Bill Clinton for having budget surplus during this period. Ed Lotterman in his Sunday Pioneer Press column has twice written that Greenspan/Bush/O’Neil thought that this was dangerous because the national debt would be paid off in a few years and that would no longer allow the government to sell treasury bonds. (My apoligies to Mr. Lotterman if I have not gotten this right.) But the whole idea is rather astounding.
Yes, Republican claims and promises to be fiscally “responsible” are always doublespeak. They have no coherent concept of “responsibility” let alone fiscal responsibility. They just want to take power… and mean TAKE power, their disdain and distrust for elections and democracy has finally broken out into the open despite themselves.
The past President Trump resembles most in nature, action, and policy is Ronald Reagan.
He’s vulgar and gross where Reagan was avuncular and dignified, but other than that style point they are quite similar. There’s no material reason anyone who voted for Reagan (or HW, W&Cheney, McCain&Palin, any of them) would reject Trump –
– except for the odd fact that Republicans seem to have forgotten or rewritten what Reagan was actually like. If you don’t remember the past you may very well repeat it – and the Republicans have been in full denial of the past for my entire adult life. (It is kind of humorous to read where a NeverTrumper presents the latest Republican president’s large boost of the national debt as evidence he isn’t a real conservative or Republican or whatever – but the joke is an old one).
Watching a fantasy-dwelling “conservative” realize that the Republican Party is full of Republicans rather than “conservatives” can entertain – but it’s depressing to ourselves confront the fact that they’re forty years late, nothing but a temporary and fringe phenomenon, and will have forgotten all about it as soon as Reagan/H/W/Cheney/Palin/Trump/whoever is not directly in front of them.
I’ve always thought that Trump has been trying to use Ronald Reagan as a model, but he’s too ignorant and inept to pull it off. For all his failings Reagan wasn’t “shallow”, Trump is very definition of: “shallow”.
I think Reagan – or his people – understood the limitations of the presidency better than Trump does. After serving as Governor of California, he had to know that there are restraints on the power of the executive. Trump treats the Constitution the same way he treated his marriage licenses: a way to get what he wants, but something to be discarded when it’s inconvenient.
Reagan also dressed better than Trump.
Getting back to Wehner: ““I think the Democratic Party has moved from liberalism to progressivism. They are different and distinct things. And I believe there is a kind of illiberalism that’s increasingly powerful in the progressive movement: the ‘cancel culture,’ the so-called ‘woke politics.’”
See, anyone who thinks that Biden and his fellow “centrist/moderate” Democrats have moved to the “left” isn’t being serious. Specially someone like Wehner who been around long enough to see this many times before. Democrats like Biden always run to the left a little on select issues but they have no intention of governing from the left when they get elected, and NEVER do. This is why these Democrats have so much trouble getting progressive and liberal votes. We’re trying to move Democrats into progressive/liberal territory, and we’re having more success than we’ve had in decades, but the idea that the Democratic Party is NOW progressive is simply daft. It’s not even a real “liberal” party yet. Wehner’s analysis there is just as daft as conservative analysis have been for decades. This is the same commie/socialist garbage that Republicans have been “fearing” for decades.
And anyone who buys into this culture “war” garbage can’t be taken seriously. If you have an impulse to go to war with your fellow Americans simply you fear your own exclusive privilege is slipping away, you’re no champion of truth and freedom. And if you choose to spend decades hating on America because you don’t like our culture, your free to that, but don’t claim to be the big patriot in the room. Any conservative American that can’t distinguish between a patriot and nationalist… is not much of a “conservative”.
The thing that bothers me about Wehner’s message in general is that he fails to recognize that Trump hasn’t demolished the conservative agenda, he’s simply taken it to it’s logical conclusion. Who does Wehner identify as the conservative voice for last three decades? Does he really think that Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. etc. etc. are or have been the rational and restrained voice of the Republican Party and America conservatives? Does he really believe that Gingrich et al have been promoting: “epistemological humility, respect for human experience, aversion to fanaticism, a belief in the complexity of human society, a belief in objective truth…”? The inventors of alternative facts are big believers in “objective truth”? Who does Wehner think he’s kidding? Wehner claims that: “Conservatives have been fiscally cautious but: “deficits and debt have exploded under Trump.” Deficits and debt have exploded under every Republican president since Reagan, Reagan proved that “deficits don’t matter”. Wehner claims that conservatives: “believe in a foreign policy based on morality”. Sure, that’s why Olive North built a terrorist army to attack, torture, and kill Nicaraguan civilians in violation of US and international law… and then lied to Congress about it. Who knew that Bush’s invasion of Iraq resulting in a million Iraqi dead on behalf of non-existent WMD’s was a “moral” victory? And didn’t Wehner notice what Richard Nixon was up to way back the 70’s?
All this claim does is reveal the fact that American conservatives have long since lost any coherent concept of morality. The historical fact is that Bush’s “compassionate conservatives” crashed into the rocks of Gingrich’s Republican Revolution and the was the end of that. It’s OK to drop trillions of dollars on the nations wealthy but we can’t feed hungry children without fostering “dependency” on the government. OK then.
The conservative trend away from intellectual and moral integrity began with their crusade against desegregation and abortion rights, and the creation of the Heritage Foundation (the original “alternative” facts squad) back in the 1970’s. It was John McCain who brought Sarah Palin and her no-nothing soon to be Trumpists out of the shadows and onto the presidential ticket in 2008, and you think Trump is the beginning of the fall? Not hardly.
Here’s what I think: I think if Trump were a popular president and a competitive candidate who was winning rather than losing, Wehner would be all-in on, despite Trumps Fascism. I could be wrong, but if Wehner hasn’t been worried about his Party’s nascent Fascism until NOW, I have a hard time taking his conservative credentials seriously.
I’ve noticed that these attempts to rehabilitate Republicans/conseratives have appear in places like Black Ink space a few times in the last few months. Writers find a “Republican” or conservative voice somewhere saying something that’s not completely wacky as if that proves they can be reasonable. I’ve always assumed that part that emerges from old impulses to provide some kind of “balance” of some kind, but serious analysis and history always defeats these attempts because even though some of these “conservatives” may be less toxic than others, they are still part of an historical trend that has led us into an existential crises. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk to them, live with them, or even have friends among them, but there’s no salvaging this mental predisposition at this point. Drawing a line with Trump is too little too late and betrays more disingenuity than enlightenment.
I used to work in psych, and we had a basic principle that we’d have to remind ourselves and each other on occasion: “If your working harder than the patient you might need to step back a little”. The point being that it’s ultimately up the person trying to recover to do the work. For what it’s worth, I’d say this about conservatives and Republicans… their redemption, rehabilitation, and recovery is their responsibility, let them do the work. One could say that guys like Wehner are making attempt at rehabilitation, but it’s a shallow and disingenuous attempt focused on blaming someones else. If Wehner wants to be taken seriously he needs to do a lot better.
If American conservatives want to rehabilitate themselves and restore they’re credibility, that’s something only they can do, and their going to have to figure out how to it. Time will tell what they come up with. All I can say is turning on Trump is barely a minimal requirement that I can’t bring myself to applaud.
Those with an impulse to applaud Wehner also need to do better and raise the bar. ANYONE who fails to see how long ago this trend began, and how deep it runs through the Republican/conservative establishment, is capable to making the crises worse. You don’t reconcile with Fascists, even if they’re pleasant conversationalists and can tell a funny joke once and while.
I personnaly love President Donald Trump’s policies and leadership. It is so refreshing and such a change from the last 50 years of the good-old-boys in DC. I am sick of politicians getting rich off of our tax dollars by giving mega-million dollar contracts to thier families. I am sick of fighting wars in countries that do not matter to us and who will be fighting for centuries to come. I am sick of allowing open borders, I am sick of all the Climate Change BS. I am sick of people who hate America and I wish you would all leave and go to your utopian place where ever that may be. Government is way too large, there are thousands of unelected bureaucrats in place who make up rules and regulations that we must live by even though most of them have no idea about what they are making up rules about. Go out and get your license to sell insurance, work in a regulated industry and you quickly see that government is the problem, not the solution. Most people who vote probably should not because they have no knowledge of history, economics, accounting. Most do not seem to understand that raising taxes means raising prices – taxes go on the expense side of the ledger and directly contribute to the cost of the goods or service. I would like to see most of government defunded – education, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid and a whole bunch more. At this point they should all be sunset as unConstitutional because they are. Drain the swamp, bring back self-responsibility and true freedom.