Well, maybe not. But ask me if I care.
Diana West wrote two days ago:
Rush Limbaugh said today that nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.Well, sign me up for that populism and nationalism. As we all know, nationalism is a known precursor to National Socialism, so whatever we do, we got to steer clear of that! No! I mean the good kind of nationalism.I would add that until Donald Trump's candidacy, neither nationalism nor populism were political choices. Both had been demonized into oblivion.[1]
That said, if it really is all about "Conservatism" – a big if – then I want to know where these red hot conservatives were when John Boehner was sucking his thumb after the last election. Wasn't there something conservative he could have been doing with this time? And where were they when Paul Ryan was cutting a deal with the Democrats to drive spending past Jupiter and funding amnesty and whatever "refugee" resettlement schemes Obama has in mind for Streator, Illinois, and Marin County, California? (Just kidding about Marin.)
Where is that sustained conservative full-court press against "hate speech" laws, open borders, the unconstitutional wars against Syria and in Iraq, our support for ISIS, and, oh, the treason of the Supreme Court in deliberately engineering a complete transformation of the constitutional scheme by lying about what the Commerce Clause means? Did that go away?
Where are the "conservatives" when it comes to legal discrimination against whites in the form of affirmative action laws? Where are they when the Attorney General of the United States throws a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party? When voter rolls are populated with the dead? When the concept of "anchor baby" is used to dilute the value of our precious American citizenship?
When, in short, have the conservatives shown the least interest in fiscal control, national sovereignty, citizenship, equal protection of the law, concern for the rights of the majority white population, or the scourge of black criminality and urban destruction?
Let me rephrase that. When have they shown any sustained outrage over anything and done anything but cave in while the left ran out the clock on some new outrage?
 |
How dare this man draw breath!
Notes
[1] "Cruz v. Trump I." By Diana West, 1/20/16.
5 comments:
If nationalism and populism are now the lyrics and melody to which we'll march or dance, where does the original intent of the Constitution [including Amendments, of course] and DoI fit in.
What are the rules and laws of our country to be. Nationalism and populism cut off from our hard-won founding principles will lead to more chaos than does our present lip-service to those principles which serve still as somewhat beneficient restraints on plunder by government.
And what is the point in confusing traitorous Repukeagains with patriot Conservatives imperfect as the latter may be? Cruz, for one, has shown some spine trying to awaken the conscience of the Senate.
Where were all the street protests by the 1000's of those who supposedly gave a crap about their country?
Nationalism and populism are wild horses unless trained for fealty to the aforementioned principles.
Teach your children well. Are you pleased with the takiyya and kitman used in Core Curriculum texts to promote Islam? Who among our new saviors have publicly, loudly, and forcefully alerted us to this betrayal?
Mr. Nelson, I don't see any contradiction between nationalism and populism and the Constitution. Communism and Islam, however, are doctrines that have within them the necessary hostility to the constitutional order. Communist countries are ruled by dictatorship of the proletariat with the will of the party as the embodiment of the proletariat as the sole determinant of law and policy. Islam necessarily demands the overthrow of any infidel polity.
Other "isms" are not innately hostile to the constitutional order. Feminism does not, for example, though it damaging for the reason that is irrational in its approach to women and men and immensely damaging to society. Black Lives Matter and feminism are phenomena to be assessed on their merits but are objectionable on legal grounds only when they violate the law. The ideas of both are objectively stupid but, if not accompanied by lawless acts, only that.
The same applies to populism or nationalism. On its merits, populism is a phenomenon that arises when people believe that ostensibly democratic institutions are influenced, distorted, or perverted by people operating outside of the accepted way. Attempts to make their voices heard using accepted political methods are frustrated. Such things as referendums, initiatives, and recall came out of populist surges early in the last century and were entirely appropriate -- and healthy -- refinements and correctives.
Similarly, nationalism is not per se inconsistent with or subversive of the legal order. Like populism, it seems to me to be a healthy corrective to, shall I say it?, diseased notions of internationalism, globalism, free trade, interventionism, multiculturalism, and diversity. These diseased notions have done enormous damage and it is they that are what need to be rejected.
So various notions or movements that are not inherently hostile to the legal order will always and forever be born out of the dreams, frustrations, stupidity, cupidity, and malevolence of humans. The must be judged on their merits and use legal means to succeed politically or socially. Nationalism and populism happen to be very attractive notions to me personally.
I do indeed like Cruz and will vote for him if he shakes out as the Republican nominee. I believe he is not a natural born citizen and am glad I have a better alternative in Trump who is. I like Santorum somewhat but don't think he will ever catch fire. I would be unhappy that the American people would yet again fail to live up to even a simple requirement of the Constitution but I sure wouldn't vote third party because I'm in a snit about it. If the GOPe pulls some nonsense at the convention (over and above what they've already tried to screw us with in the form of different primary rules in different states) I'd be delighted to cast my vote so that the GOP forever disappears from the face of the earth.
cont'd…
cont'd…
The problem with conservatives -- and I been one my entire adult life but for one youthful indiscretion -- is perfectly captured in the recent National Review attack on Trump. I respect some of the names in the list of his attackers but I have to say that I am tired of their articles, their monographs, their op eds, their guest appearances, their think tanks, and their conventions. Populism rears its head with me here as I see that they collectively have done nothing to delay, defeat, reverse, or repeal the poisonous accomplishments of the left. It's all been for nought. Reagan was an aberration. Bush '41 hadn't warmed the seat in the Oval Office after RR departed before he and all the GOP toads began their work to undo what he did and become loyal "hands across the aisle" men.
They've been hors de combat on the simple issues of the bastardization of the Commerce Clause and leaving the execrable R.B. Ginsburg untouched by impeachment for her outrageous recommendation to the Egyptians that they not use our Constitution as a model. Nor have any of them, RINO, GOPe, or "conservative" mounted a sustained defense of free speech. If they're so gutless on such simple issues, it's no wonder that they are far from the front lines when the issue of plain vanilla Islam and its incompatibility with Western life needs to be squarely faced.
Colonel, thank you for your well-considered comments and education provided.
Populism smacks of local and/or widespread majority rule to the detriment of the minority not served by enforcement of the majority's position.
As an example, Trump's kowtowing to Iowans regarding ethanol subsidies resulting in higher gasoline prices, is a kowtow to a particular Constitutional violation, as are many other subsidies and bailouts.
Similarly, it seems to me affirmative action efforts to support feminists, Black Lives Matter activists, and others' demands for special treatment, contradict our Constitutional principles of equality before the law.
When will short people demand equal pay and play in the NBA? When will skinny people demand subsidies for muscle-building steroids to play in the NFL?
As we yield to these demands by stretching existing law beyond that law's original intent, we dilute/damage our Constitution by corrupting its original intent and meaning. Amend the Constitution as necessary.
[How should we fairly and lawfully implement equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome without cloning the population from one selected female and one selected male? Who does the selecting?]
Who suffers? those outside the now favored group. To be fair and compassionate we should provide for effective remedial actions early on to obviate the need for 'affirmative action'-- inner city schools would be a place to start.
You're welcome, Mr. Nelson.
Populism could be a phenomenon detrimental to the minority but, I think, only to the extent the populists are able to get around legal protections. Black Lives Matter and other idiotic and aggressive leftist groups are not populist because their support or base is a mile wide and an inch deep. But even groups with support that's wide and deep are not a threat to the minority. Bernie Sanders would love to be a threat to a minority but it's not going to happen because Congress will not go along with it. (Don't ask me why it's been otherwise with Obama. I suppose the answer is that he's TRIED to get around Congress but that his executive orders on guns don't really do more than state existing law. Defer to NRA and GOA on that.)
Ethanol subsidies are not necessarily an example of the dangers of populism but are more of an artifact, if that's the right word. Iowa's place in the schedule of primaries gives the interests of farmers inordinate prominence because of how important it is for presidential candidates to do well there.
Similarly, undue influence can be exerted by quite small groups who can concentrate their power with relatively small expenditures where the interests of the much larger majority are individually very, very small. The special interest, however, stands to gain a lot by even small favors from the government. Again, this is not a manifestation of or defect of populism. Populists think they are being excluded from government. They can choose legal or illegal means to get considered but there is no hint today of any intention of Trump's populist supporters to commit crimes. Victor Davis Hanson seems to think populism necessarily includes a "by any means" component but I think he was just being sloppy. Maybe.
Post a Comment