Conservatism

A New History of the Old Right

In the American right, populism has always been lurking in the shadows.

|

The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, by Matthew Continetti, Basic Books, 480 pages, $32

Unlike most accounts of the American conservative movement, Matthew Continetti's The Right begins in the 1920s, when two Republican presidents returned the country to normalcy after World War I. The ideals of that era's Republicans were not so different from those espoused by former President Donald Trump today: They believed in cutting taxes, restricting immigration, and protecting American industry through tariffs. But there was one fundamental difference: Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rejected the populism of their age. They aimed to preserve American institutions. Trump is more like William Jennings Bryan, riding the coattails of discontent. He represents a time, Continetti argues, when an increasingly apocalyptic conservative movement "no longer viewed core American institutions as worth defending."

Continetti has worked in many of the most important conservative institutions. As such, he should be praised for addressing the darker side of his movement, a side that many other conservatives have been hesitant to confront. Continetti puts the tension between populism and elitism at the heart of the conflict over conservatism. The result is a much more nuanced and satisfying portrait of the American right than is offered by most other journalists and historians. 

The discontent Trump used to propel himself to the White House has always been present on the American right. When Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R–Wis.) began his crusade against "the hidden Communists in America and their liberal Democratic protectors," for example, he found support in the Republican Party and in the few conservative publications that existed at the time—The American Mercury, Human Events, even the libertarian-leaning Freeman. As McCarthy's accusations multiplied and "became more outrageous, more galling, and more disconnected from reality," Continetti writes, conservatives such as William F. Buckley Jr. still backed his crusade. There are similarities in the way Sen. Robert Taft (ROhio) responded to McCarthy's conspiracy theories and the way Sen. Mitch McConnell (RKy.) has responded to Trump's. While McCarthy ultimately undermined himself by launching outrageous accusations against President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Continetti demonstrates just how long conservatives have been tempted to follow aggressive demagogues while they lambaste liberals.

Traditionally, conservative elites have tried to channel populist sentiments into a respectable and successful movement. No one had to grapple with this question more than Buckley, the founder of National Review. The usual conservative narrative says that Buckley legitimized conservatism by being a gatekeeper: In keeping the conspiracism of the John Birch Society and the radical individualism of Ayn Rand at arm's length, he made it less likely that conservatives would be labeled extremists. In the case of the John Birch Society, Buckley wrote a 5,000-word essay, "The Question of Robert Welch," that condemned the group's founder, arguing that "the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anticommunism in the United States would be to resign." Buckley's purges are often held up as a great success, but the reality is that Welch did not resign and the John Birch Society continued to have influence.

While Buckley initially aligned his magazine with segregationists in the South, a choice that has marred the movement's reputation ever since, he was resolute in opposing Alabama Gov. George Wallace's particular brand of populism. Wallace, of course, was a strident proponent of segregation in the 1960s. During his second run for president, on a third-party ticket in 1968, the candidate turned heavily to anti-elitist rhetoric. "As he began to attack the federal government and its know-it-all politicians and bureaucrats," Continetti writes, "his support among conservatives grew." Buckley called Wallace "Mr. Evil," "a dangerous man," and a "great phony." He was also taken aback by the "uncouthness that seems to account for his general popularity."

Other conservatives joined the denunciations. Wallace's conservative fans, Frank Meyer wrote, need to recognize that "there are other dangers to conservatism and to the civilization conservatives are defending than the liberal Establishment, and that to fight liberalism without guarding against these dangers runs the risk of ending in a situation as bad as or worse as our present one." In modern parlance: Don't back a man like Wallace to own the libs.

Ultimately, movement conservatives did not embrace Wallace. Ronald Reagan refused to run on his ticket with him (the idea had been floated by some conservative activists), and Wallace ultimately gave way to another Southern Democrat, Jimmy Carter (who Wallace endorsed and campaigned for in both 1976 and 1980). But the fact that he made so many inroads is revealing.

Continetti does not spend much time discussing Reagan. This was deliberate: Reagan often dominates histories of the conservative movement, even though he was just one of many important historical actors. But he remains essential to understanding the American right. His presidential campaigns appealed to the populist impulses of the late 1970s, but they did so in an optimistic way, channeling voters' discontent into a constructive legislative agenda. This made him both the exemplar and the exception.

Continetti's major contribution comes in explaining how conservatism has changed since the end of the Cold War. Here he details the conflict between neoconservatives, such as Bill Kristol, and paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan. With their dedication to the culture war and their opposition to foreign intervention and immigration, the paleoconservatives presaged Trump's electoral success in 2016.

The paleocons lost the political battles of the 1990s and 2000s. But the War on Terror ultimately discredited the neoconservatives, opening the door for populist discontent to capture the Republican Party. The first manifestation of this was the Tea Party movement. While Continetti draws a straight line from this to Trump's election, in reality the Tea Party encompassed several strands of conservatism (all populist in nature) with conflicting conceptions of what 21st century conservatism should entail. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ted Cruz of Texas all rode the Tea Party wave to victory in 201012, and all had very different visions for the future of the nation—and very different visions from Trump's. Nonetheless, the anti-establishment politics that emerged in the wake of the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis ultimately brought Trump to power.

It was during this time, from 2010 to 2016, that Continetti believes "the populist American Right [became] less interested in preserving institutions than in tearing them down." One could hardly think of a better instrument for that purpose than Trump. Trump condemned illegal immigration and trade with China, announced "support for a ban on Muslim entry into the United States," and recalibrated "American politics along the axis of national identity." Many conservatives initially condemned him, and National Review even released a special issue titled "Against Trump." One of its contributors called the candidate "a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones." Nonetheless, Trump won.

Now a new generation of right-wing writers is denouncing the American founding and trying to redefine American conservatism. Continetti rejects their project, insisting that "one cannot be an American patriot without reverence for the nation's enabling documents" and "one cannot be an American conservative without regard for the American tradition of liberty those charters inaugurated." The task for conservatives, he writes, is to preserve "the American idea of liberty and the familial, communal, religious, and political institutions that incarnate and sustain it—that is what makes American conservatism distinctly American."

Many Americans, including a lot of conservatives, were shocked when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. If Continetti's book had been available before the 2016 election, perhaps we would not have been so surprised. The Right demonstrates that the populism we have seen from the American right over the last five years is not an aberration. It has always been present, lurking in the shadows and sometimes in plain sight, waiting for its moment. Some statesmen, such as Reagan, were able to tame it and channel it into something productive, but for the most part, it was just pushed to the movement's fringes. It is not likely to return to the margins anytime soon.

NEXT: Oklahoma Governor Signs Bill To Create 'Free Speech Committee' for Public Universities and Colleges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I see British lefties are as retarded and illogical as ours.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/22/the-narcissism-of-the-britain-bashers/

    It’s a schizoid mentality. Author Ben Cobley summed it up at the weekend: "It seems that everyone in the world should be living in Britain because nowhere else is safe, yet simultaneously we’re the most awful, barbaric, racist country in the world."

    1. Canada and Australia too. Gaslighting like that has always been part of the establishment war against the proletariat.
      But remember, according to the above article they're the good guys.

      1. Nobody gaslights like the left.

        "That isn't happening and it is a good thing that it is."

        1. Also, "You say you don't want it but I know you really do, and should."

          1. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working (res40) online from home without investing any money. Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything……. https://bestjobshere40.blogspot.com/

    2. Your denials about being leftist apologists for the left would be more believable if you weren't in lockstep with their talking points, dirtbags.

  2. R.I.P. Calvin Coolidge

    1. Best POTUS of the past 150 years.

      1. Even with his support for Prohibition? Or was liquor prohibition such a widespread spasm in the USA that you can forgive any politician, since there was no way any of them were going to stop that wave?

        1. Prohibition is proof that woman's suffrage was a mistake

          1. Women's suffrage would have been fine. What fucked us up was nixing the requirement to own property.

              1. This shit would all have been toned down a lot if the only people who got a say in running the place actually had a material stake in its success. And by all means that should have been available to as wide an array of individuals as could manage it, and the fact that it was a requirement would have made it more common.

                They had "Women can't own property" and "Women can't vote" and they solved the wrong fucking problem, the wrong way.

                1. This shit would all have been toned down a lot if the only people who got a say in running the place actually had a material stake in its success.

                  Why does owning property or how much someone pays in taxes determine whether someone has a "material stake" in the success of the country? I would think that simply living here was enough.

                  Seems to me like you all are just looking for an excuse to deny voting rights to people that might vote differently than you.

                  1. If they vote like you do, a permanent block should probably be necessary.

                    1. f they vote like you do, a permanent block should probably be necessary.

                      Well, that's one way to confirm my suspicions.

                  2. Why does owning property or how much someone pays in taxes determine whether someone has a "material stake" in the success of the country?

                    For the same reason that owning stock in a corporation determines whether you have a "material stake" in the success of the company you fucking moron. By definition you do not have a *material* stake in something to which you have no claim of ownership and have paid nothing.

                    1. For the same reason that owning stock in a corporation determines whether you have a "material stake" in the success of the company you fucking moron. By definition you do not have a *material* stake in something to which you have no claim of ownership and have paid nothing.

                      Being a citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation are not the same. They are not even close to being similar enough for this analogy to work. You own stock in a company because you invested capital in it. You are a citizen of the United States if you were born here or went through a years long process of naturalization. Your "stake" in the success of the country is due simply to living here.

                      Rocket: Why do you want to save the galaxy?
                      Quill: Because I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!

                      In the own property theory of voting rights, someone that owns a half acre of swampland assessed at $50 would have a right to vote, regardless of any other financial contribution than the minimal property tax on that land, but someone that paid tens of thousands in taxes, but only rented and didn't own any 'property', wouldn't have a right to vote. Is that about right? If you don't think it should work that way, the what kinds of property ownership do you propose to use as qualification for voting right?

                      Maybe after you've thought through this argument for more than 5 seconds, you can call me a "fucking moron" without simply showing yourself to be the asshole.

              2. Property-owning voting requirements effectively limited the franchise to a landed gentry, an untitled aristocracy that privileged descendents of the first colonists, making up about 6% of the country's population, and those rules were gone in all states by the 1850s, so it's hard to blame Prohibition on that. The temperance movement was driven largely by women during an era rife with alcoholism and domestic violence, so it's more likely that women's suffrage gave an added populist push to the ratification of the 18A.

                1. "Landed gentry" is a term with a specific meaning you fucking midwit. It referred to British land owners whose income could be sustained entirely from land rents. Nothing analogous existed in America since independence.

                  Also you pulled that 6% figure right out of your ass. Feel free to stick it back in there.

  3. Again with the headline associating some horror ("lurking") with "populism".

    AFAICT the tendency of libertarian thinkers to associate "populist" with "authoritarian" began with the Maddox and Lilie study in 1979, but at least they reasonably explained their choice of that word. I recommend you read it (there was a soft cover from CATO, "Beyond Left and Right") to get why the authoritarian pole of their Nolan chart they put "populist". Since they were writing about the American scene, they noted that there is no mass traditional American authoritarian tendency the way there is on the European continent. No widely-followed Marxist, aristocratic, or other dirigiste tendencies. So the closest they could find was one they named "populist" after the People's Party of the late 19th Century. The authors traced each of the 4 poles — "liberal", "conservative", "libertarian", and "populist" — by their historic analysis as a logical progression from the concerns of the original Jeffersonian liberals who founded the USA.

    This made a hit at CATO, and since then, about half the time, their writers have identified American and foreign democratic authoritarian tendencies as populist, but the way they use the term has become unmoored from its origins in Maddox and Lilie. Maddox and Lilie didn't even try to say this was an especially close identification, but only one they were driven to for lack of a better term to describe tendencies in the USA. They didn't think "authoritarian" to be justified, because even the most authoritarian-in-practice tendency by the mass of Americans (not talking academic elites here) were too libertarian in their justification to be anything like the Nazi, Bolshevik, etc. movements of Europe.

    1. All of this. It's vastly Newspeak-ish to use language to imply similarities and relationships where there aren't any. Doubleplus ungood.

      "You're an authoritarian because you won't let other people keep slaves!"

      1. Now, you are an authoritarian if you take away special tax breaks for Disney.

        1. The rationale for the original provision of the special tax situation made a measure of sense, back when Disney was the only thing in the area and the existing infrastructure couldn't support the additional load, but the area has been built up rather significantly since then and there are plenty of actual democratically elected governments available to handle things like "running the police force".

          I mean, for fuck's sake, the Florida Turnpike through there is at least 4 lanes in each direction for a solid 20 miles, and it gets up to six lanes at points, IIRC. It's not exactly a lonely spot in the middle of the swamp anymore.

  4. It was during this time, from 2010 to 2016, that Continetti believes "the populist American Right [became] less interested in preserving institutions than in tearing them down."

    The institutions you're decrying the populists want to pull down were all created by Progressives and they have collectively destroyed the proper relationship between fed.gov on the one hand and the individual states and individual citizens.

    Defend the borders and defend the currency. Everything else should be either done by the states or left to the individuals.

    1. The US Dollar is a progressive, socialist construct.

      When they created it, Congress eliminated the free currency market and established a monopoly they could control with the richest, most powerful corporation in the world, the Federal Reserve Bank.

      End the FED. End the dollar and eliminate the US Federal Government's ability to regulate currency and domestic trade and to tax an individual citizen's property.

      1. Oh, and then the Feds need to secure the borders.

        Send all the people in the IRS, the DEA, the DOE, DOJ, CDC, NSA, all of them to suit up in rifle plates, issue frags and M4s and secure the fucking border.

        Until that one job is done, the feds have no legitimate purpose.

        On that we completely agree.

        1. Because the real enemies of the state are penniless Guatemalans seeking a better life for their families.

          1. There is no right to citizenship in other countries, but you have a nice emotional fit, Jeff.

            1. I am not demanding a "right to citizenship" for migrants. Traveling across a border is not the same as demanding citizenship.

              1. “Traveling “.

                1. I used to like to travel to Canada to go perch fishing every year. Still had to go through a checkpoint and be allowed in by a Canadian border patrol agent. Fucking bullshit!

                  1. It’s like they own the place or something.

                    1. Who is this socialist "they" that collectively owns the country through the state acting on their behalf? Or does the government itself own the nation's borders and everything inside?

                    2. Who is this socialist "they" that collectively owns the country through the state acting on their behalf?

                      That would be the citizens of the country who established the government that exercises legal jurisdiction within their borders you fucking numbnut. Try not to interrupt while adults are talking.

          2. "unfettered border crossing" is not the same as "Gautamelans deserve a chance to immigrate to America." But you know that right?

            Nobody believes the border should be a free-for-all, even extreme communists like yourself, even those like me who dont believe government issued passports are a legitimate use of power. And on the other hand nobody believes America shouldn't allow immigrants.

            Your statement is nonsensical on all levels.

            1. So, instead, you will spend all your time criticizing someone who is closer to your point of view when it comes to migration, rather than the guy above who wants to send more government thugs with guns to the border.

              Even if you don't like my position or even like me personally, do you think you could spare just a little bit of time criticizing the people around here who think that murdering penniless Guatemalans is a sensible use of government resources?

              1. Again you are strawmanning.

                No one is arguing for the murder of penniless Guatemalans.

                1. Jeb Kerman wrote:

                  Send all the people in the IRS, the DEA, the DOE, DOJ, CDC, NSA, all of them to suit up in rifle plates, issue frags and M4s and secure the fucking border.

                  I note that you chose to respond to my response to that, rather than to respond to his incendiary comment.

                  Do you think you could spend even a little bit of your time criticizing the people who want to use more state violence against penniless migrants, rather than against me who wants to use less state violence against penniless migrants?

                  1. Leftists coddle their own violent Left wing populist dictators:

                    Per Left wing Wikipedia:
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_populism

                    “Left-wing populism”
                    Some scholars point out nationalist left-wing populist movements as well, a feature exhibited by the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua or the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.….

                    United States:
                    Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-described democratic socialists, are examples of modern left-wing populist politicians.[28][29][30][31]. Ocasio-Cortez was described by The Nation magazine as a "new rock star" who was "storming the country on behalf of insurgent populists."[32] Elizabeth Warren is also mentioned as a representative left-wing or liberal populist,[12][13][33] and she is sometimes evaluated as a social democrat.[14][15][34]

                    +++

                    Sanders, Warren and AOC all embraced BLM ANTIFA Anarchy in America’s “Summer of Love”. They would be nothing if not for their love of pursuing and canceling Americans.

                    +++

                    Venezuela
                    The presidency of Hugo Chávez resembled a combination of folk wisdom and charismatic leadership with doctrinaire socialism.[17] Chávez's government was also described to have been a "throwback" to populist nationalism and redistributivism.[35]

                    Hugo Chavez (and current Venezuelan “populist leftist” Ernesto Maduro) enjoyed eliminating their enemies aka “desaparecidos”

                    Interestingly Wiki fails to list the ultra violent leftist populist dictators: Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Ernesto “Che” Guevara (Argentina/Cuba), Juan Perón - close friend of Che Guevara (Argentina), Eva Peron, Daniel Oretga (Nicaragua), Salvador Allende (Chile)

                    But the violent are right-wing populists. You must be having long-term COVID symptoms of memory loss

                2. Can we argue for the murder of chemjeff radical statist?
                  answer: no, because murder implies he's human

                  1. You might get in trouble for unauthorized destruction of livestock, though.

              2. You want to send government thugs *to my home*, bunky. Better they're on the border.

          3. The real enemies of the state are your bosses who don't want to loosen immigration standards, but legitimize their illegal status, Jeffy.
            Penniless Guatemalans are wonderful when you can employee them as poolboys, gardeners and house maids for less than a dollar an hour.

            1. ^ this was the mainstream Democrat view on illegal immigration up until Donald Trump flipped the script on them.

        2. I would prefer getting a time machine and sending them back to Vienna or Berlin circa 1925 or better yet Russia. The rise of anti-American socialism started with the "intellectual" classes who came here in droves from 1890 to 1910...socialist, secularist and often with old world grudges they then aimed at Americans of the various ethnic backgrounds in the "old country" they had issues with.

      2. There are two different things her - the fiat dollar and the legal regime around it

        There is nothing wrong with fiat money. Done right, and we've been doing it right mostly, it what you need to keep the money supply expanding smoothly alongside the economy.

        The problem was and is the driving out of competing currencies. Crypto had *potential* (that it did not live up to) to change this but that opportunity is already gone and within a couple more years it'll be heavily regulated into irrelevancy.

        1. There's nothing wrong with fiat money? Yeah tell that to my benie baby "investments"

        2. I think it is was the socialist George Orwell who said he trusted gold miners with the expansion of the money supply more than academics...good for old George good for me. Gold isn't perfect BUT it does take "politics" out of it.

        3. "it what you need to keep the money supply expanding smoothly alongside the economy"
          You don't need that. (Price deflation is a good thing.) Your fallacy is "proof by assertion". Anyone who says this to you only does so because they have an incentive to have a more powerful centralized State.
          -An Economist

    2. The Institutions in question are the Intel agencies and big business.
      Conservatives turned against The Press 50 years ago, after it became obvious the Press were liberal activists.
      Now the FBI has become a Praetorian Guard for the Left, willing to participate in a partisan coup, and along with other Feds uninterested in protecting commoners from actual threats, and more interested in rooting out White Nationalism and conducting ideological purges.
      Big business hopped in bed with Obama because it was good marketing and good business, and has rapidly become radicalized and hostile to everyday Americans, to the point where Disney sees it’s role as having half its characters promote alternate sexual identities, and it is a huge scandal now that ExxonMobil won’t fly rainbow or BLM flags anymore.

      I don’t think conservatives launched any effort to tear them down. They are in a desperate struggle to keep public schools and churches from becoming to radicalized

      1. And Obama was extreamly corrupt. Netflix paid him 60 mil to get back at comcast

    3. The institutions you're decrying the populists want to pull down were all created by Progressives and they have collectively destroyed the proper relationship between fed.gov on the one hand and the individual states and individual citizens.

      Absolutely correct. Fantastic one line summary of the situation

      Defend the borders and defend the currency. Everything else should be either done by the states or left to the individuals.

      You had me until 'defend the currency'. The Fed reserve must be abolished.

      1. ^Second that...

      2. I believe that reference is to a currency backed by (gold); don't debase the currency.

        1. What gold did you have in mind, and why not silver? Tying the currency to a precious metal such as gold presumes gold production will match GNP growth, which will likely lead to deflation, but it's also why the Gold Rush caused ridiculous levels of inflation.

          You don't have to be a goldbug to hate the Fed. The Austrolibertarian understanding of economic history prior to Jekyll Island is abysmal, considering most of them can't even fathom runaway inflation or economic depression without the Fed lowering interest rates.

          1. Tying the currency to a precious metal such as gold presumes gold production will match GNP growth

            No, it doesn't. You presume that because you are a literal fucking retard who thinks you can't have economic growth without currency growth. Because you can't fathom the concept of money itself having a market-based price, reflected as interest. Because you are a one move chess player who can't comprehend how price deflation is a less severe problem than monetary inflation. You can pick any commodity you like and tie a currency to it and universally get a better result than the Federal Reserve has achieved. $3.50 in 1915 when the Federal Reserve became the monopolist central bank of the United States had the same purchasing power that $100 does today. But by all means, tell me more about your delusional deflation panic.

    4. When the termites have destroyed the structure, the best course of action is to tear it down and rebuild.

  5. “Now a new generation of right-wing writers is denouncing the American founding and trying to redefine American conservatism.”

    Such as?

    1. Yeah.

      "Cite?"

      That's a pretty fucking bold claim. I'm not taking the word of some rando I've never heard before on it. Shit, I wouldn't take the word of someone I considered actively trustworthy.

      Unless this is some lie of omission bullshit in which the writers in question are lamenting things like "They kinda fucked up the wording on 2A and missed several very important things that would have kept us more on course", which I have done myself. And is not anything even close to approaching "denouncing the founding".

      1. Exactly, DE rugy tried the same trash reporting with the le pen article

      2. I'm guessing maybe those Papist Theocrats Sohrab Ahmari. Adrian Vermeule, Rod Dreher and anyone who writes for First Things magazine?

        Reason's Stephanie Slade is on the Konservative Katholic Konspiracy beat warning of a potential home-grown Salazar.

        Which is:
        1. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE

        2. Is far less worse than things that could.

        1. Rod Dreher a Papist? He isn't Roman Catholic. He's a convert from Catholicism to Orthodox Christianity and hardly anything approaching a theocrat. Conservative Catholics in general are big devotees of Thomistic natural law ethics.

          1. He was being sarcastic, since Reason has castigated all three of those people as radical Christian theocrats you autistic fucking retard.

    2. Yeah it's the right that wrote 1619 project? Oh wait it wasn't. Well, it's the right that wants to curtail the BoR. Oh wait wrong again. The right that believes the Constitution has outlived it's usefulness. Oh wait wrong again. What exact foundings are right going after again?

      1. Someone, somewhere, on the right, is denouncing the founding. Unfortunately, they’re so good at lurking, no one knows who they are!

        1. Well, like I lament elsewhere, who knows what the fuck that quote even means by "the right". For all we know the author is referring to some weird American Monarchists who want us to have a strong national government but revile the fact that we had a revolution against England.

      2. It isn't the right that wants to repeal or weaken the Second Amendment. It isn't the right that wants to limit free speech because it might offend someone. It isn't the right that wants to get rid of the Electoral College.

        So which side is "denouncing the American founding" again?

  6. Also, yeah. Whatever.

    Traditionally, conservative elites have tried to channel populist sentiments into a respectable and successful movement.

    My ass they have. "Conservative Elites" have tried to channel donations into lining their bank accounts as the Public Loyal Opposition without actually knocking the gravy train off its rails.

    Fuck. Those. People.

    https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/04/21/can-we-get-a-hell-yeah-jesse-kellys-kick-as-thread-rallying-the-right-to-leave-the-old-right-behind-a-must-read-for-22-and-beyond/

    But there was one fundamental difference: Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rejected the populism of their age. They aimed to preserve American institutions. Trump is more like William Jennings Bryan, riding the coattails of discontent. He represents a time, Continetti argues, when an increasingly apocalyptic conservative movement "no longer viewed core American institutions as worth defending."

    I will say that I really appreciated the author's diligence in then going ahead and laying out a long and detailed list of all of the core American institutions that this "apocalyptic conservative" movement has come out against. I feel he did an excellent job in providing concrete backing for all zero of the items on that list.

    Now a new generation of right-wing writers is denouncing the American founding and trying to redefine American conservatism.

    And, again, lots and lots of examples given for this otherwise surreally shocking claim.

    Y'know, if I didn't know better, I'd say that Reason was concerned about the rising tide of populist sentiment for restoring the fucking Constitution in the face of leftist madness, and is trying desperately to prop up the old "more heat than light" Right so it doesn't happen. Sort of a quick short-circuit to get to where the Tea Party got co-opted in order to get all those angry people back in the corral where they "belong".

    Also, while I'm here, the entire concept of using a binary scale "Left" versus "Right" -- particularly, given its origin during the post-French Revolution years and the meanings it held then -- to describe all of American politics is completely fucking retarded. Particularly since historically, one of those definitions has a general economic theory tied to it and the other doesn't, except insofar as "not that" is a position.

    So who knows, maybe there are people on "The Right", where "The Right" is defined as "everyone who doesn't want International Socialism / Communism" who "denounce the American founding", but it's a meaningless claim when your filter is that broad. It's the same meaningless "All P are Q, not all Q are P" fallacy the left uses when they attempt to smear Republicans as Nazis by saying they are "right wing".

    "All Republicans oppose International Communism. All Nazis opposed International Communism. Therefore all Republicans are Nazis."

    None of the actual readers here are stupid enough to fall for that sort of specious logical construction. And the fifty-centers already live by that fallacy.

    1. Let’s not forget the famous equation:

      Left + Right = Zero

      1. Rest in peace, Michael Hihn. May angels speed thee to thy reward, sweet prince.

        1. I would suspect his final place is very very cold, and his roommates are judas, brutas, and casius

        2. Indeed. I hope he has found the same peace we're enjoying in his absence.

          1. ha!
            He was an odd one.

    2. My ass they have. "Conservative Elites" have tried to channel donations into lining their bank accounts as the Public Loyal Opposition without actually knocking the gravy train off its rails.

      No, those are the right-wing populist grifters. Such as, Trump when he collects donations for "Stop the Steal" and then doesn't use it for actual legal challenges regarding the election, instead uses it for his own election fund. Such as this guy:

      https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/brian-kolfage-wall-guilty-millions

      After once claiming two criminal cases against him were politically motivated, Brian Kolfage on Thursday admitted in court that he conspired to secretly take more than $350,000 of the millions of dollars he'd received in donations to build a private border wall.

      The founder of the viral campaign We Build the Wall agreed to forfeit more than $17.8 million and also pleaded guilty to fraud as part of an agreement with the federal prosecutors he'd previously called "corrupt ass holes."

      I will say that I really appreciated the author's diligence in then going ahead and laying out a long and detailed list of all of the core American institutions that this "apocalyptic conservative" movement has come out against. I feel he did an excellent job in providing concrete backing for all zero of the items on that list.

      Well, since this is a book review article, I imagine the claims you are asking for are in the book. Why not read it and find out for yourself?

      the rising tide of populist sentiment for restoring the fucking Constitution in the face of leftist madness

      But it's not about "restoring the fucking Constitution". It's about imposing the will of the populist mob. Look at what John Eastman and his buddies were trying to do. They were trying to find clever ways to subvert the Constitution in order to keep Trump in power. Is that about "restoring the Constitution"? Mike Pence, the one guy there who actually read the Constitution evidently, is hated on the right for doing so.

      https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets

      This is an article about the New Right, and in it there is a discussion with J.D. Vance, an actual serious Senate candidate for Team Red. From the article:

      Vance described two possibilities that many on the New Right imagine—that our system will either fall apart naturally, or that a great leader will assume semi-dictatorial powers.

      “So there’s this guy Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things,” Vance said. Murphy chortled knowingly. “So one [option] is to basically accept that this entire thing is going to fall in on itself,” Vance went on. “And so the task of conservatives right now is to preserve as much as can be preserved,” waiting for the “inevitable collapse” of the current order.

      He said he thought this was pessimistic. “I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left,” he said. “And turn them against the left. We need like a de-Baathification program, a de-woke-ification program.”

      “I think Trump is going to run again in 2024,” he said. “I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”

      “And when the courts stop you,” he went on, “stand before the country, and say—” he quoted Andrew Jackson, giving a challenge to the entire constitutional order—“the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”

      Does that sound like "restoring the fucking Constitution" to you? No, it sounds like the raw exercise of political power.

      The own link that you cited equates having principles with a "Loser mentality". THAT is the New Right. Adherence to the Constitution is merely a bumper-sticker slogan, to be cast aside once they gain power.

      1. Well, since this is a book review article, I imagine the claims you are asking for are in the book. Why not read it and find out for yourself?

        Perhaps because if the reviewer wants to provide an honest review, they would do that themselves. A review which cherry picks quotes is dishonest. Book reviews have several purposes:
        * Give a good objective overview of the book so review readers can decide if they want to buy to read the details.
        * Disparage the book so people are warned away.
        * Plug the book so people are encouraged to buy it.

        This review removes its claim to objectivity by quoting just a little with no backup, turning it into either a shill piece or a hit piece. Or a dust jacket blurb.

        What's the point of a book review which boils down to nothing better than a dust jacket blurb?

        1. We don't call the guy "lying Jeffy" for nothing. He isn't just dishonest, but will defend the dishonesty of others as long as they push his Top Men fetish.

        2. A book review is not supposed to prove or cite every single claim made in the book.

          perlmonger doesn't like one of the claims made by the reviewer and so he is attacking the source. That is all this boils down to.

          1. It didn’t even give a name.

      2. A well laid out argument.

        Of course you were called a "liar".

        Conservatives hate the US Constitution and Trump is proof of that claim.

        1. No I don't think it's fair to claim "conservatives hate the US Constitution". They like the idea, but they prefer the Constitution that's in their head rather than to the actual one. I wonder how many would claim that the Constitution says "the US is a Christian nation" or somesuch? Here is an actual poll on Republican vs. Democratic views on voting:

          https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/22/wide-partisan-divide-on-whether-voting-is-a-fundamental-right-or-a-privilege-with-responsibilities/

          Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly say voting is a fundamental right that should not be restricted in any way – 78% hold this view, while fewer than a quarter (21%) say it is a privilege. Two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners say voting is a privilege that can be limited if requirements are not met, compared with about half as many (32%) who say it is a fundamental right.

          I mean, the Constitution itself refers to voting as a right. But that is not how Team Red views it. And because they tend to view themselves as "the guardians of the Constitution", they will move to restrict voting rights in the name of "saving the Constitution".

          1. When examined piece by piece conservatives actually hate/dislike most of the elements in the Constitution.

            1A - Establishment Clause, freedom of press/speech (censoring films, book banning)
            Supremacy Clause (they want states rights), 14A Incorporation of the BoR.
            5A - Takings Clause
            4A - Illegal Search and Seizure (conservatives love the police state), due process
            8A - cruel and unusual punishment, torture (defended in the Dubya years)
            16A federal income taxes
            17A - direct election of Senators
            19A - womens right to vote
            24A - poll tax/test
            23A - gives DC electors
            26A - voting rights age test
            13A and 15A - opposed by conservatives

            Of course the Textualist/Originalist can limit the effectiveness of rights by insisting on "original" meaning.

            1. Wow. You two do try to outdo each other on the rampant bullshit. Let me get the popcorn to see where you two end up at.

              Still laughing at biden didn't support GBD. Never change shrike.

            2. "(conservatives love the police state)"

              ...except it is the Left championing the intel agencies and FBI and their rampant abuses of authority. Odd.

          2. " I don't think it's fair to claim "conservatives hate the US Constitution". They like the idea, but they prefer the Constitution that's in their head rather than to the actual one. "

            Tru dat.

          3. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly say voting is a fundamental right that should not be restricted in any way

            LOL, what a fucking dishonest framing. I know there's this fringe on the left that unironically believes that middle-schoolers to vote, but the reality is that there's good reasons for the right to vote not being an absolute one.

          4. "Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly say voting is a fundamental right that should not be restricted in any way"

            So, vote multiple times?
            Vote while in jail?
            Vote even if not a citizen?

            No restrictions IN ANY WAY in voting makes voting pointless.

            1. I haven't seen anyone on the D side arguing for allowing voting multiple times. Have a citation to indicate otherwise?

              Not everyone uses the distinction in the meanings of the words, but in the U.S., "jail" is typically used in reference to county or city facilities that house people arrested and awaiting trial or serving short misdemeanor sentences. Someone not yet convicted is presumed innocent (even if not out on bail), so their right to vote cannot be denied simply because they are in jail. (I think this was something actually used against Blacks during the Jim Crow era, so even the laws against felons voting are suspect in their intent. That is, Black people trying to vote would be arrested on bullshit charges just to keep them from voting.) As far as I know, no state bars people convicted only of misdemeanors from voting, though maybe they can't vote while serving a sentence in jail in some states. I'm not sure on that.

              I would agree that only citizens should vote. (I am against the NY (?) efforts to allow legal immigrants to vote in local elections.) I don't see much support to change this more broadly, though.

              The question over restrictions is that restrictions should be based on there being evidence that they are needed to keep elections accurate and secure. As a fundamental right, it can only be restricted after government shows a compelling interest in doing so and that it is using the least restrictive means of fulfilling that interest. Republicans haven't been doing that. From the NC voting law changes that got struck down several years ago because they targeted Black voters with "almost surgical precision", to recent efforts to scale back changes that Republicans had previously supported, it is only about looking at the data and seeing which procedures voters likely to support Democrats take advantage of more than Republican voters, and then changing the law to curb those procedures.

              Ultimately, support for democracy means maintaining that support even when your side loses. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then admit that you don't want a republic, you want a government that implements your will on everyone else, just like what you accuse the other side of trying to do.

              1. "I haven't seen anyone on the D side arguing for allowing voting multiple times."

                1) They oppose any method to prevent it from happening.
                2) I was not the one opposing ANY limitations on voting.

                "I would agree that only citizens should vote. (I am against the NY (?) efforts to allow legal immigrants to vote in local elections.) I don't see much support to change this more broadly, though."

                CA has done it, if memory serves.

                "Ultimately, support for democracy means maintaining that support even when your side loses. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then admit that you don't want a republic, you want a government that implements your will on everyone else, just like what you accuse the other side of trying to do."

                Are you aware of the percentage of Biden voters who STILL think Russia turned the election in 2016?

                1. 1) They oppose any method to prevent it from happening.
                  2) I was not the one opposing ANY limitations on voting.

                  Really? Like what? What specific methods that would prevent voting multiple times have they opposed? This isn't how this works. I want to see you explain what reasonable limitations that Republicans have pushed that you support that Democrats oppose. If you just keep saying that they oppose everything, which is simply hyperbole, then you aren't making a real case, just shouting.

                  Are you aware of the percentage of Biden voters who STILL think Russia turned the election in 2016?

                  I'll take whataboutism for $1000, Alex.

                  1. What specific methods that would prevent voting multiple times have they opposed?

                    They oppose having to identify oneself in order to vote. They oppose the periodic removal of names from voter registration rolls, which has famously allowed dead people to continue to vote for decades after their death. They oppose creating an auditable chain of custody for ballots. They oppose preventing third parties from registering voters, collecting ballots on behalf of voters, or voting on behalf of voters (see Michigan where demented old people in nursing homes had ballots mailed to them, filled out by nursing home staff on their behalf, and mailed back on their behalf). They opposed only mailing ballots to eligible, registered voters during the 2020 election in which all mail-in balloting was instituted illegally by judicial fiat. They oppose only counting ballots with a valid postmark during the 2020 election in which all mail-in balloting was instituted illegally by judicial fiat. They opposed only counting ballots that were received before the legislatively-established voting deadline during the 2020 election in which all mail-in balloting was instituted illegally by judicial fiat.

                    f you just keep saying that they oppose everything, which is simply hyperbole, then you aren't making a real case, just shouting.

                    He said nothing of the kind you mendacious piece of shit. He quoted your fellow mendacious piece of shit cytotoxic (dba chemjeff), who in turn had quoted a Pew poll which said (and I quote):

                    Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly say voting is a fundamental right that should not be restricted in any way

                    Your quarrel is with Pew Research, not the person who responded to that quotation.

                    I'll take whataboutism for $1000, Alex.

                    You should have taken English as a Second Language at your local community college you sub-literate stupid piece of shit liar.

                    1. They oppose having to identify oneself in order to vote.

                      No, they do not. You may mean that they oppose having to show a restrictive number of forms of government-issued photo IDs, but that isn't the same thing as not having to "identify oneself". Even in states that do require such photo IDs, they make exceptions in some circumstances where people would be able to show other proof of identity. I show my DL when I vote in Florida because it is convenient for me to use that. But I don't have to. I could also show the card they mail me with my name, address, and precinct information on it. (Literally titled "Voter Identification Card".)

                      I, for one, would be a lot more sympathetic to the efforts to have tighter rules on voters identifying themselves if the Republicans pushing them would also put sufficient resources into making sure that all eligible voters could meet those requirements. That was part of the ruling against a Texas ID law around a decade ago. They made a small list of forms of ID that would be allowed, but did hardly anything to help people that were clearly eligible and had been voting for years get the ID that they would need if they didn't already have it. Not everyone drives or buys alcohol, and many people may have opened bank accounts long enough in the past that they would no longer have what the banks accepted as proof of identity back then.

                      The truth is that Texas's own submissions in that case showed that Black and Hispanic citizens in Texas lacked the proper IDs under their new law at far higher rates than white Texans. The main problem was the disparity, not the numbers of voters (admittedly small in total) that would have difficulty obtaining them. If you can reduce turnout of your opponents voters by even 1-2% by putting extra hurdles in between them and the ballot box, that can make the difference in close races.

                      They oppose the periodic removal of names from voter registration rolls, which has famously allowed dead people to continue to vote for decades after their death.

                      Citation needed. Or did you mean the guy that went on TV about how his dead wife had cast a ballot, only to later admit that it was he that had committed the fraud. The Nevada GOP had cited his case as one of over a thousand dead voters, which was reduced to 10 worth investigating further when state officials reviewed their claims.

                      "A review by Secretary of State Barbara Cegvaske’s office this spring of evidence of voter fraud presented by the Nevada Republican Party found that of 1,506 voters the party alleged to have voted by mail even though they were deceased, only 10 were actually deceased, according to the Office of Vital Statistics. The report said those 10 individuals were referred for investigation by law enforcement."

                      Purging voting rolls is a common and necessary process. It is even important for people that want to vote for election offices to have accurate information about where they live. But the problem is that when it is done sloppily it is far more likely to make it difficult for eligible citizens to vote than to prevent fraud. In one lawsuit from a conservative group pushing for a purging of voter rolls in Wisconsin, their lawyer said that an error rate of 5% (~6000 voters being purged that shouldn't be) would be fine.

                      And again, it isn't that this would make it impossible for eligible voters to cast their ballots, as these mistakes can, in principle, at least, be corrected before Election Day. The point is whether the hurdles and burdens it places on voters are justified by evidence of need for security and whether those burdens have a disparate impact on minority groups historically denied their voting rights.

                      They oppose preventing third parties from registering voters, collecting ballots on behalf of voters, or voting on behalf of voters (see Michigan where demented old people in nursing homes had ballots mailed to them, filled out by nursing home staff on their behalf, and mailed back on their behalf).

                      Voter registration drives by activist groups have existed for my whole life. If specific procedures need to be altered to ensure that these groups don't break laws or security, then fine. Show evidence for what they are doing that is wrong and how to fix it. But saying that they shouldn't be doing that at all? Are you saying that only government officials should be allowed to distribute and collect voter registration forms? Would a ban on "third parties" include friends or relatives?

                      The same questions would apply to mail ballots. I can see limiting people from being paid to collect ballots or registration forms, or for partisan groups to do so, but where to draw lines seems likely to become a partisan thing in itself. Would you feel the same about an evangelical church hosting a voter registration event as you would one sponsored by the ACLU? Or volunteers from that church going to the homes of their elderly members to collect and deliver their mail ballots in the same way you would object to a liberal group doing that?

                      ...was instituted illegally by judicial fiat.

                      Judges rulings are part of the legal system. To say that a judge's ruling is "illegal" is kind of contradictory. A judge can certainly be wrong on the law, but their rulings have the force of law unless overturned on appeal, whether their ruling was right or wrong on the question of law before that court is a matter of legal opinion anyway.

                      And certainly not "all" mail in balloting was instituted "illegally" only for the 2020 election. 25% of the 2016 votes were mailed in. Utah, hardly a blue state, has universal mail balloting. What do you know about fraud in mail ballots that Utah Republicans don't?

                      should not be restricted in any way

                      Should your religious freedom not be restricted in any way? Or is it a privilege that can be limited if requirements are not met? If you say that should not be restricted in any way, does that include ritual animal sacrifice? Arraigned marriages for children? Polygamy? It looks like the Pew poll was wrong to frame the question that absolute, but I still don't see anyone looking to take that level of absolutism implied by it into practice.

    3. Also, while I'm here, the entire concept of using a binary scale "Left" versus "Right" -- particularly, given its origin during the post-French Revolution years and the meanings it held then -- to describe all of American politics is completely fucking retarded.

      This part I can agree with. (Well, except for the French Revolution bit - I think most people can understand nowadays that "right" does not mean "pro-monarchy".) In the current moment we are confronted between two choices, an authoritarian socialist Left and an authoritarian populist Right, which are really just two different flavors of authoritarianism. We need to point this out and offer an alternative, which can borrow good ideas from both Team Red and Team Blue, but does so in a non-authoritarian manner.

      1. How is socialism not populist?

        1. Socialism can be populist, but not all populist movements are socialist in nature.

          1. So your saying the difference between the left and right is that the left is socialist and the right some are and some are not?

            This isn't even good sophistry mate.

            1. No, as I pointed out above:

              In the current moment we are confronted between two choices, an authoritarian socialist Left and an authoritarian populist Right, which are really just two different flavors of authoritarianism.

              That is what I view right now as the difference between the Left and the Right. There are elements of populism within the Left, of course, but they are not in the ones in the driver's seat of the Democratic Party.

              1. True, the totalitarian Marxist would-be dictators are in the driver's seat of the Democratic Party that currently controls every elected branch of the federal government. Thanks for clearing that right up and also doubling down on your self-own regarding the meaning of "populism" you fat stupid chunk of shit.

    4. Yes, Left/Right has lost all meaning, other than Leftists consistently hewing to some form of Marxism
      The Right in the FR wanted to preserve institutions. Now we are told The Right wants to tear them down.
      I always saw the Left/Right divide in the 20th Century as a struggle between Class and EthnoNationalism, the poles being International Communists and White Supremacists (or insert dominant racial/tribal group)
      Now, the “Left” is more racist and consumed with all manner of Identity Politics, as they control the Institutions, and the Right seem to be confined to cultural guerilla insurgencies.
      It’s all Authoritarian vs Freedom now

      1. When has the left not been racist?

      2. Like, I think that a lot of the time, left / right is basically effectively "globalists" vs: "nationalists". But that's where it starts to fall apart almost immediately, because there's far more options available than "International Socialism" and "National Socialism".

        I dunno. It's baffling to me, though I guess it's just more fucking gaslighting, that we're supposed to celebrate different cultures but nowhere is supposed to have a distinct one anymore.

      3. So what parts of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does the Right want to tear down?

        Now repeat the question for the Left.

  7. Populism is such a reprehensible ideology.

    That's why I embrace Koch / Reason libertarianism, which is effectively the opposite of populism. I believe the primary objective of government ........ actually, no, forget that. Let me try again.

    I believe the primary objective of human civilization itself is to make the 20 or 30 richest people on the planet even richer. Conveniently this group includes Charles Koch, the billionaire who funds Reason.com.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires
    #DownWithPopulism

    1. Nothing says freedom like serving modern day kings.

      1. Nothing says freedom like (tacitly) supporting the Big Government (i.e. leftist) party and (openly) kicking the limited government party every chance they get.

  8. I guess I am confused. Isn't socialism the ultimate populist movement. promising to give everybody's money to everybody else?

    And isn't statism itself always authoritarianism?

    All these labels serve no purpose other than satisfy somebody's ego and justify new books and new columns.

    1. Right, but it's bad when populists don't want to be serfs under communism.

    2. Socialism is populist in theory, particularly the idea of the fading away of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. But it's always authoritarian in practice, swapping out one set of aristocrats for another.

    3. Depends on which socialism and which socialists you're talking about. They talk a good game about proletarian virtue, but it's usually the intelligentsia and an elite vanguard party running the show because they believe the people they're trying to organize are functionally retarded plebs.

  9. The Right demonstrates that the populism we have seen from the American right over the last five years is not an aberration. It has always been present, lurking in the shadows and sometimes in plain sight, waiting for its moment. Some statesmen, such as Reagan, were able to tame it and channel it into something productive, but for the most part, it was just pushed to the movement's fringes. It is not likely to return to the margins anytime soon.

    I think this is mostly right. In hindsight, Reagan was so popular in his day not because he was a rigid conservative ideologue, but because he said mean things about the Soviets ("Evil Empire") which drummed up the spirit of American patriotism and pride.

    Maybe American conservatism is fundamentally populist, which from time to time merely has a patina of intellectual gloss to make it seem more respectable? And that all we are seeing now is what has always been present, with the veneer stripped away?

    1. Maybe socialism is fundamentally populist.

      Sorry to keep beating on that. I know you have your own opinions. Maybe you can educate me on how socialism is not populist.

      1. All progressive policies are populist, they would have zero appeal without the emotional hook. And given the overlap between communist, or as they prefer, socialist policy, and progressive policy, they are indeed populist and have always been so. If one examines the messaging from team blue, it is clear that they are pushing to be certain team red is not considered in a populist light. Not the party of the working class, not the party of the disadvantaged, not for x, not for y, only for rich straight cisheteronormative white men. This line of rhetoric is in itself populist.

      2. There's a line between "optimism" and "delusion", Alphabet, and thinking Jeffy might be able to educate anyone on anything might be over it.

        1. I had hoped my sarcasm would be obvious to all but jeffyboy.

          1. Well sure, but that's no reason to not be snarky anyway. 😉

      3. Socialism can be populist.
        Nationalism can also be populist.
        Populism is about the will of the mob. If in the current moment the mob wants socialism, then it's a socialist mob. If in the current moment the mob wants nationalism, then it's a nationalist mob. The mob is fickle and runs on emotion not logic, which is why the Founding Fathers took such pains to construct a system to guard against "the passions of the mob". Which is why, it is so ironic that the conservatives of yore, who prided themselves as "constitutional originalists", now are the populists who by their actions are proving the prescience of James Madison.

        1. Using the word "mob" is a slimy, depreciatory attempt to cast aspersions on the will of people, you disgusting authoritarian fuck.
          Why don't you just call them hoi polloi, base canaille, deplorables, sans-culottes and vulgar plebs as well, while you're at it?

        2. So you're saying that democracy is the will of the mob now?

          1. Pure unchecked democracy, yes. That is why we don't have that, and shouldn't, in this country.

            1. But you're also saying that doing what the people want is populism - when you don't,t like it.

              When you like it, it is just good policy.

              1. No. A government that blindly follows the mob is "populism" and I reject that mode of governance whether it is left-wing or right-wing.

                1. So Tony is wrong about the popular vote means something?

                2. You were saying differently for years whenever you were talking about the 2016 Hillary vote.

                3. So, Democrats abiding by the demands of BLM ... a mob in every sense of the word, is blindly populist?

            2. You live in Canada, cytotoxic. And you've also consistently gone into apoplectic fits about Republicans "undermining democracy", for example when they would not hold a vote on Merrick Garland's confirmation. So, exactly as Agammamon said, you are fine with mobocracy when the mob is on your side, but turn into a champion of the Republic as soon as your god-kings lose an election.

          2. "So you're saying that democracy is the will of the mob now?"

            There's nothing new about that, and it's why the writers of the Constitution attempted to create a republic, not a democracy.

    2. "t. In hindsight, Reagan was so popular in his day not because he was a rigid conservative ideologue, but because he said mean things about the Soviets ("Evil Empire")"

      Right, those people who voted for him in '80 just loved his (checks papers) 1983 speech.

      The US was literally in a cold war that was nearly 30 years old. Sure, Reagan suggested that the US was worth fighting for. But yeah, let's render down decades of writing, evening radio addresses, and speeches to "Hur dur, he said the soviets were evil!"

      "Maybe American conservatism is fundamentally populist, which from time to time merely has a patina of intellectual gloss to make it seem more respectable? And that all we are seeing now is what has always been present, with the veneer stripped away?"

      Or...and let me just spitball here....OR...In a democracy, the way you become popular is by speaking messages that resonate with the populace.

      I know it is a shocker that in a country of hundreds of millions of people, sometimes it's easier to build popular support by saying popular things, but this isn't something unique to the right. It is what happens in a democracy.

      The New Deal was nothing but populism, for fucks sake. Minimum wage? Student Debt repeal? Social Security? That is all the Bread side of populist Bread and Circuses.

      Seriously, this isn't some "populism lurking in the shadows". Populism is how either side wins the democracy. On any given election, certain issues are the most important to the populace, and the winning party is the one that can strike a popular position with those people. So yeah, Tax Cuts make the right popular when taxes are a high priority. And socialist control of financial institutions make the left popular when we have recessions.

      If there has been a shift over the last 20 years, it is that the left has become the place of authoritarians, and they have selectively tried to purge populists from dictating their policies. That is why- unlike Republicans and Independents- Democrats increasingly want authorities telling the nation what to do from the commerce they engage in, to the news they can consume, to the lessons they learn in school. And this is why they are going to get trounced in November, because they thought they finally had enough control of the institutions that the Elitists could run the show.

      1. There is a difference between constructing policies that are popular, and just letting the mob run amok. A populist will tend to take the opinion of a mob and use that alone as justification for a particular course of action. A proper statesman, on the other hand, will try to balance the desires of the mob with what is legal, what is constitutional, and what is prudent to do. No, populism is not unique to Team Red, but they sure seem to be in the populism driver's seat in the current moment.

        What you describe as "authoritarian" would have been described not that long ago as "how a Republic works". The mob is not always right, and the institutions of the Republic are purposefully designed to cool the passions of the mob so that the net result of legislating on a particular issue reflects a wise consideration of the issue, not simply bending to whatever the mob wants.

        Yes, the populist progressive left wants Biden to cancel student debt. Which would be a bad idea. And if Biden had been more of a populist, he might have done it by now. But he isn't, he has made some token gestures towards it, but no mass cancellation of debt. He deserves some credit for resisting the very noisy populists of his party. By contrast, look at DeSantis. He is knee-jerk reacting to whatever the conservative populist mob wants. Sure, let's take away Disney's special status, even if it means the state incurs billions more in liabilities, even if it sets a very dangerous precedent for government retaliation against free speech going forward, sure let's do it, because they're mad at Disney! Who is being the bigger statesman here, and who is letting the mob's passions and emotions govern his decision-making? Hmm?

        A Republic needs "elites" to keep the mob in check. Even in Libertopia there would be a small number of elites telling the mob "no, you can't execute 'summary justice' on the accused criminal, he deserves due process as well". If you don't like that, then I would examine your commitment to a republican form of government in general.

        1. "There is a difference between constructing policies that are popular, and just letting the mob run amok. A populist will tend to take the opinion of a mob and use that alone as justification for a particular course of action"

          In other words, the last several Democratic presidents, Bernie Sanders, the Vice President, The Squad, the D's in the House and Senate?

          Or is it only populism when the right does it or it's a policy *you* do not approve of.

          Because that seems to be the consensus definition of populism - the right did it.

          1. There are progressive populists on the left, which I mentioned above. They want something just because the mob demands it, and then they invent academic-sounding rationales to try to justify it. Like MMT for example.

            But your description of who are the populists on Team Blue is too broad. Take Obama for example. Do you recall back in 2009-10 the demands for a "mortgage cramdown"? That there were just so many homeowners underwater, that the government should just rewrite all of those mortgages by fiat in order to "help" all those homeowners? There were a lot of lefties demanding that, and Obama to his credit refused. It would have been terrible if he had.

            Same with ObamaCare. The leftwing populists of his party wanted single-payer health care, and he didn't push it. The one token nod to single-payer that he originally had - the so-called "public option" - he dropped the moment it ran into any sort of controversy.

            So far Team Blue has been much better at controlling their populists. Which, from my point of view, is a good thing. The bad thing, of course, is that even their non-populist policies tend to be terrible.

            By contrast look at Team Red. Look at how many of them voted on Jan. 6 to challenge the electoral college results purely to try to keep Trump in power. Say all you want that "Democrats did it too!" in 2016 or 2000 or whenever, but even back then, it was a token effort by only a couple of them. On Jan. 6, it was half of the Republican caucus in the House which voted to do that.

            The populists in Team Red are running the show, not the institutionalists like Mitt Romney.

            1. Correct.

              Team Blue institutionalists = Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Shumer, Clinton, Manchin, most of the Senate.

              Team Blue populists = AOC/ the Squad, Bernie Sanders, Warren.

              Progressives were turned back twice with Bernie Sanders. Biden was never popular but happened to be the last one standing vs Bernie in 2020.

              1. "Biden was never popular but happened to be the last one standing vs Bernie in 2020."

                That will happen when two of your competitors drop out right before Super Tuesday and endorse you so Bernie can't win.

                1. Of course.

                  Regular Democrats knew Sanders was doomed. Biden had the only chance to defeat Trump.

                  Amy Klobuchar saved the election for Democrats.

                  1. Hmm, yes, go with that. Hilarious.

            2. "But your description of who are the populists on Team Blue is too broad. Take Obama for example. Do you recall back in 2009-10 the demands for a "mortgage cramdown"? That there were just so many homeowners underwater, that the government should just rewrite all of those mortgages by fiat in order to "help" all those homeowners? There were a lot of lefties demanding that, and Obama to his credit refused. It would have been terrible if he had."

              He ALSO claimed he could not just override immigration policy, until, well, he decided the mob wanted it bad enough and he then decided to specifically do that.

              Or how he offered favored groups "waivers" for Obamacare requirements, something he had, literally, zero right to do.

              "So far Team Blue has been much better at controlling their populists."

              Seriously? The populists have been running Team Blue for years now. You apparently did not notice this, but it is reality.

              1. He also claimed he was a Christian who believed marriage was between one man and one woman until popular opinion moved by 5 percentage points and then he became the fag version of Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

          2. To jeff a mob is when legislation goes against his wishes. Nothing more. Nothing less. Why he pushes for things like teachers having privilege of children above parents.

        2. "A proper statesman, on the other hand, will try to balance the desires of the mob with what is legal, what is constitutional, and what is prudent to do."

          You are hilarious. So FDR, who used popular will to gin up hatred against immigrants selling meat to cheaply and took them to court and threatened the SCOTUS into allowing massive government price fixing- he was a statesman. But Reagan, just a populist through and through. Tell me more.

          "What you describe as "authoritarian" would have been described not that long ago as "how a Republic works"."

          This is nonsense and just shows how gone you were. But we know that after you said you would rather a nation run by elites than a nation run by the mob. *shrug*

          For the record, nobody ever said that near universal faith in the IRS, FBI, and CIA (as Democrats show in direct contradiction to Independents and Republicans) is "How a republic works." No one has ever said that a republic works by having "Government restrict information even if it means it will hamper free expression." That is Authoritarian, whether you agree with it or not. And it is now the majority position of ONLY democrats, not Republicans or Independents.

          "By contrast, look at DeSantis."

          No thank you. Or, I'll rephrase that: DeSantis shouldn't have attempted to retaliate against Disney for political speech. I have said that numerous times.

          But what exactly do you think you are arguing? That the Right is more populist than the Left right now? No Shit! I literally said that the reason the Democrats are about to get crushed is that their Authoritarian Elitists thought they had enough control to banish the populists in their party. Thank you for making exactly the same case.

          1. Overt, I'm not referring specifically to Reagan or FDR or anyone when I write

            "A proper statesman, on the other hand, will try to balance the desires of the mob with what is legal, what is constitutional, and what is prudent to do."

            Would you agree or disagree with that statement as written?

            For the record, nobody ever said that near universal faith in the IRS, FBI, and CIA (as Democrats show in direct contradiction to Independents and Republicans) is "How a republic works."

            Interestingly, I found this:

            https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/

            There is a partisan gap, but it isn't as large as you think. About 3/4ths of Democrats, 2/3rds of Independents, and 1/2 of Republicans have a favorable view of the FBI and the IRS. And 2/3rds of all three groups have a favorable view of the CIA.

            But that is neither here nor there. You wrote:

            If there has been a shift over the last 20 years, it is that the left has become the place of authoritarians, and they have selectively tried to purge populists from dictating their policies.

            I would actually agree with this, the institutionalist wing of the Democratic Party tries to shut down the populist progressive wing. Look at how they tried to shut down Bernie Sanders etc. But regardless of which party it is, I would prefer that populists NOT be the ones dictating policy. I would prefer that we elect representatives, who go to the Capitol and discuss and debate and pass laws that are broadly reflect what the people want but which don't give in to their every demand, particularly the unreasonable ones; and that, from time to time, if the mob demands something especially outrageous (i.e., "ban Muslims"), that the politicians that we elect would have the courage and the spine to say "no, that would be wrong, and here's why". Those politicians have to stand for election periodically in order to retain the support and trust of the people whom they are supposed to serve. In other words, how a Republic is supposed to work. Do you agree with this basic formulation?

            1. "Overt, I'm not referring specifically to Reagan or FDR or anyone when I write"

              Please stop. You were the one who tried insisting that Reagan was actually a populist all along- he wasn't a statesman, he was some bloke fanning the flames of anti-communism or whatever. It's transparent Chemjeff. When someone on the left does populist stuff, well, it was statescraft- a compromise that wasn't as bad as the actual populists would have done. But when someone on the right does anything, well, that's naked populism right there.

              "Interestingly, I found this:"

              Interestingly, numerous people have linked you to actual current data that shows the divide is much worse. And it was pretty bad in 2018, no matter how much you want to soft pedal it.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5GiuWJqYJg&t=1385s

              "I would prefer that populists NOT be the ones dictating policy."

              I know. Because you are authoritarian. That is what I have been saying, and you can't take off your partisan Red v Blue blinders long enough to realize that it is a bad thing.

            2. "Do you agree with this basic formulation?"

              I agree that your desire for this system stands in stark contrast to your purported "Radical Individualism" where everyone just does what Chemjeff prefers because of some inate social obligation. And that it shows you will argue for whichever bizarre formula you want just so long as it puts you as far apart from the right as possible.

    3. You are a moron

    4. Is that why the Left like Clinton, Biden, etc have been saying mean things about Russia and the joos?

      1. That's different because cytotoxic is a historically illiterate retard.

  10. "Ultimately, movement conservatives did not embrace Wallace. Ronald Reagan refused to run on his ticket with him (the idea had been floated by some conservative activists), and Wallace ultimately gave way to another Southern Democrat, Jimmy Carter (who Wallace endorsed and campaigned for in both 1976 and 1980). But the fact that he made so many inroads is revealing."

    So what this all amounts to is the standard, "Fascism is always descending from the right, and yet when it lands, it always comes from the left."

    Here we have Wallace who, the author conveniently leaves out, was a Democrat. He tried to unite with the right, and the right soundly rejected him. And so he took up carrying water for Jimmy Carter.

    But the fact that the Democrats produced and ultimately benefited from the racist southerner's alliance is somehow "Revealing". Really? There are two parties in the US, and the fact that a powerful political figure tried to ally with both is somehow revealing?

    What seems revealing is that the Racist Southerner tried to ally with the Right, and was rejected by Reagan, who the author doesn't want to talk about. Because to talk about Reagan, who is one of the most influential and successful political figures in the modern right, is to destroy this entire theory.

    This is, unfortunately, a giant digest of cherry picking nonsense.

    1. Bringo

    2. Racist Southerner tried to ally with the Right

      Many of them (like Strom Thurmond) defected to the GOP instead.

      In fact new research has shown that school integration was the primary driving force behind the South's conversion to the GOP.

      The Real Origins of the Religious Right
      They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

      1. How many times do you have to be laughed at to give up the southern strategy actually happening? The south switched a generation later after a generation died off. The dems still had biden and Hillary praising grand wizards of the democrat senate less than a decade ago. Put a leftist put the theory of the grand switch of racists and you run with it.

        You are one gullible morhetfucker.

      2. Which has nothing to do with the article. But coming from you that isn't a shock.

        A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. Rather than follow the will of Reason’s staff, you resurrected that identity and continue to post here. A decent person would realize how abhorrent this behavior is, burn the SPB identity and return under some new handle. While that wouldn’t change your despicable appetites, it would at least respect a community’s wishes to not mix with pedophiles. But since you have no shame, the only thing I and others can do is point out your past behavior rather than converse with you.

      3. Many of them (like Strom Thurmond) defected to the GOP instead.

        Name another besides Thurmond.

        You can't, because he was the only southern Democrat to switch parties.

        The rest, including those who filibustered the ’64 CRA, stayed Democrats until they were out of office. Most remained Democrats until they died.

        There was no switch. The record of who was in Congress proves that.

        This is a lie perpetrated by your party of slavery, of Jim Crow, of the Black Codes, of the KKK, of segregation, of thousands of Confederate monuments placed to intimidate black people, the party of redlining, of destroying the black family, of creating ghettoes.

        And that's the party you shill for.

        1. "Name another besides Thurmond.

          You can't, because he was the only southern Democrat to switch parties."

          Jesse Helms and one other person (name escapes me) did so.

          But those were it.

          A lot of Democrat heroes were segregationists. Sam Ervin, the hero of the Watergate hearings --- massive segregationist. Fulbright, of course, was a huge one. Byrd, the long-standing corrupt shitbrick, was a high-ranking member of the Klan.

          1. Helms was a Republican from his very first term, not a Democrat. First running for Senate in 1972. A decade after the Democrats filibustered the '64 Civil Rights Act.

            Once, in his early 30's he had run on a Democratic ticket for a Raleigh City Council seat, but that's not what anyone is talking about when they invoke the mythical switch.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms#First_Senate_term_(1973–79)

            Aside from Thurmond all the Southern Democrats who filibustered the ’64 CRA, stayed Democrats.

            The switch is a lie.

      4. "Many of them (like Strom Thurmond) defected to the GOP instead.

        In fact new research has shown that school integration was the primary driving force behind the South's conversion to the GOP."

        I've studied this specifically.

        Can you name how many Congressional segregationists joined the GOP?

        Three. Three ever. The rest remained Democrats, many for years after the CRA.

        It is odd, no, that as the South became progressively less racist they also, simultaneously, became less supportive of Democrats?

    3. I was right about one thing: When fascism came to America, it was waving a rainbow flag.

      1. The entire leadership of the Nazi Sturmabteilung in the thirties were gay or pederasts, so it's not like there isn't precedent for LGBTQ introducing fascism.

    4. IIRC, George Wallace was not onlly Democratic, but an enthusiastic New Deal Democratic afficionado who loved the pork and "public works" projects it sent to his State. He only parted ways later over racism when other Democratic figureheads changed their minds.

  11. 'Continetti has worked in many of the most important conservative institutions.' The Free Beacon and the Weekly Standard do not 'many of the most comprise. Shilling for a book because the writer either finds it interesting or it contains views that align with his worldview is one thing. Padding the author's resume, so to speak, is another altogether.

    1. Continetti is a young man with no particular insight or experience who happened to marry into the Kristol family business. His book is a typical product of the Kristol family business.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Continetti

      1. Damn. Reason just can’t help themselves.

      2. Matthew converted to “Judaism” so as to marry Bill Kristol’s daughter. Their wedding took place at the Ritz Carlton in DC. Had he converted to marry to a family of observant Jews, that would have been impressive and showed intellectual and spiritual depth. Bill Kristol is as much of an observant Jewish as Donald Trump is a practicing Christian. Matt is a fraud, just like his father-in-law, Bill Kristol.

        “Why Never Trumpers Bill Kristol and The Lincoln Project Won’t Ever Mention Israel”
        https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-trump-lincoln-project-2020-ads-1.8982272
        A decade later, and after seeing Trump hijack the GOP out from under the control of mainstream conservatives like himself, Kristol is determined to help elect Biden, who would almost certainly re-institute policies that he previously claimed were a disaster. Though he’s still adept at raising money for whatever causes interests him, pro-Israel voters as well as most conservatives see Kristol as a hypocrite and shameless self-promoter

        https://forward.com/culture/341118/my-name-is-bill-kristol-and-how-i-became-a-renegade-jew/
        “My Name Is Bill Kristol — and How I Became a Renegade Jew”

        1. So Reason has finally resorted to pushing outright neocon propaganda.

          KMW and the foundation may as well just go and dance on Lanny Friedlander's grave at this point.

    2. Fuck, the Weekly Standard basically morphed into the Bulwark and Dispatch. It would not know a conservative idea if it fucked their wives in front of them.

      1. I made the mistake of reading a couple of articles at the Bulwark. What a clown parade.

  12. In the American right, populism has always been lurking in the shadows

    Populism is democracy, vox populi, the voice of the people, and for all its flaws it's one million times better than the antilibertarian Top Men aristocracy that this rag has begun pushing.

    Ask anyone who says "populism" with a sneer their views, and you'll find an authoritarian.

    1. I don't like populism, but I like it a shit ton better than Elitism.

      The reason the Left hated Reagan was because he didn't just follow the Populist waves, he communicated to the populace, and influenced what the populace found important. Issues don't just stay dormant, they evolve over time, and a Great Communicator can help shape that message.

      The "Shining City on the Hill" resonated with the Populace. But it wasn't the populist position at the start of Reagan's run. There was severe doubt in the nation's mind that the US could make it. It was divided especially by communists and communist sympathizers, and inept people in the government who believed their elite status made them smarter than the average bear. Reagan flipped that narrative, made the populace believe in america and also deeply skeptical of the government ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")

    2. Fair point. The left's current finger-pointing crusade to attempt to tar the right as populists certainly smacks of just this. But this is typical for the vast majority of the left-leaning types, the need to be able to look down on the proles and serfs.

      1. Trump is certainly a populist. The "people" hate free trade and immigration more than anything. Free trade has wrongly been blamed for all kinds of ills by Trump and Bernie Sanders alike. Trump is too stupid to describe why NAFTA was the worst deal ever. He just knew the people scapegoated it. Technology moved those lost manufacturing jobs. Companies now make far more product than ever with 1/3 the assembly workers.

        As populists Trump and Bernie Sanders hated the technology elite like Gates, the Google guys, Bezos, Jobs, etc.

        Amazingly Obama, Bill Clinton and the Bushes are all hated by populists largely for their free trade positions. And all are considered elitists by the people.

        When it came to Trump's new NAFTA it was the same as the old with some new content requirements in it. And he called it the best trade deal ever. It is symbolic of the Trump era - hollow and meaningless in the end.

        TPP would have set the trade rules for 30% of the world economy in favor of the US. But populists like Trump and Sanders/Squaw lady killed it.

        1. Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.

        2. "Amazingly Obama, Bill Clinton and the Bushes are all hated by populists"
          Nothing amazing about it. They oversaw the biggest wealth transfer to the rich in human history, bloodthirsty, useless wars, the stagnation of working class wages and the end of social mobility.

          "largely for their free trade positions"
          You do come up with the most amazing bullshit excuses.

          "And all are considered elitists by the people"
          Because they are.

          "When it came to Trump's new NAFTA it was the same as the old with some new content requirements in it."
          Better dispute mechanisms; a 16-year sunset clause; greater incentives for automobile production in the U.S.; more access to Canada's dairy market; and an increased duty-free limit for Canadians who buy U.S. goods online.
          Best of all from a libertarian standpoint, State-owned enterprises are prevented from receiving unfair subsidies when compared to private enterprise.

          "And he called it the best trade deal ever."
          Light years better for the US than NAFTA. You'd be hard pressed to find an honest economist who'd say otherwise.

          "TPP would have set the trade rules for 30% of the world economy in favor of the US."
          The TPP's copyright and currency rules were some of the stupidest things ever written. They would have crushed competition forever.

          You're to stupid to shill here, Shrike. Your bosses need to hire a better shill.

          1. Trump's deal was about 90% anti-libertarian with its content requirements, labor union preferences, minimum wage requirements, environmental concessions and the like.

            Did Nancy "trick" The Con Man again? She got way more out of it than free traders did.

            1. "Trump's deal was about 90% anti-libertarian with its content requirements, labor union preferences, minimum wage requirements, environmental concessions and the like."

              I gave concrete examples of what is in the USMCA to back up my statements, you haven't. Just crazed allegations.
              You're not tricking anyone here, we all remember the negotiations and the agreement's substance. 2019 isn't lost to the mists of time.

                1. So the same, but also a step backwards? Interesting concept.

                2. Of course they did.

                  The Peterson Institute is funded by China and acts as its mouthpiece. https://freebeacon.com/national-security/huawei-funded-think-tank-takes-aim-at-top-china-hawk/

                  Veronique de Rugy is a Reasonista and a globalist stooge who just wrote an article here that outright lied about almost everything in it.
                  https://reason.com/2022/04/21/frances-authoritarian-establishment-faces-off-against-the-even-uglier-authoritarianism-of-the-far-right/

                  As for the others they say "we’re lucky Trump didn’t make things that much worse", which is pretty pathetic for a TDS motivated hit piece, and means that despite looking they couldn't actually find much to bitch about.

                  Remember, I said "honest economists", Shrike. Not CCP propagandists, Democrats and corrupt journalists.

    3. Not only that, "populism" is the term they use whenever the masses dont line up for the elitists.

      Whenever the masses align with the elitists it's now "democracy"

  13. In the American right, populism has always been lurking in the shadows.

    "Populism" is the term progressive elites use to describe the phenomenon that many people oppose their policies.

    And it isn't "lurking in the shadows" at all, it's just that educated snobs like you don't notice it because you are out of touch with what's going on in the country.

  14. oh no! not 'radical individualism'!

    1. Didn't Reason once have Ayn Rand on its cover? How times change...

  15. 1. What exactly do these people think the Left has been pandering too? Unions, LGBT, government cradle-to--grave care?

    2. Are we, as libertarians, supposed to be *against* populism - in a democratic Republic of all government types - in favor of rule by an 'elite' that just does what the 'Top Men's think is best? Is the author seriously saying Washington knows best?

    1. I'm waiting for 'The New History of the Old Left' that reframes the Left as 'populist' demagogues.

      1. ^. which is in fact what they are.

  16. You know I remember reading an article... many many years ago... well over 15 years ago, from a reliably liberal, Democratic thinker who lamented that in America we have this frustrating tendency to not trust our leaders the way Europeans do. This lack of trust, as you can probably guess, was singularly responsible for the American inability to enact planet-saving and other various socialist, top-down policies that were so good for you, they had to be mandatory.

    What would this magazine call that type of "darkness" that "lurked in the shadows"?

  17. Now a new generation of right-wing writers is denouncing the American founding and trying to redefine American conservatism.

    I would probably call myself more populist than at any previous time in my life. I and my fellow travelers are explicitly wanting to hold fast to the American founding, and protect it from the "living constitution" progressive left-- which has explicitly agitated for such things as the destruction of the nuclear family, the elimination of international borders, the broad redistribution of wealth, the curbing of Americans' ability to choose where to live, how to live etc.

    Populism isn't questioning the founding... it's the only thing trying to preserve it.

    1. When explicit racism is now considered a mainstream attribute on the decidedly non-populist center left, what... exactly is the darkness lurking in the shadows I'm supposed to be so worried about?

    2. It's amazing how populism rises when the 'elite' are straying further and further away from the path the people want them on.

      It's almost like government doesn't and isn't intended to lead - and why we have placed so many limits on what it can do. To prevent it from going too far astray and to prevent the mob from killing everyone else.

      Too many people frame it as a 'government good' or 'mob good' and proceed from there when it's a little bit of both - a certain amount of populism is 'the will of the people's and a certain amount of government restraint prevents 'the will of the people' from becoming 'gas the jews'.

      1. a certain amount of populism is 'the will of the people's and a certain amount of government restraint prevents 'the will of the people' from becoming 'gas the jews'.

        Which is why the left shouldn't bitch too hard about things being corrected via populist democracy, given the alternative for how things turn out for them.

  18. I'm skimming some of the comments about Reagan here, and I find it interesting that people always go to Reagan's general positivity about immigration.

    Yes, Reagan WAS positive about immigration-- and arguably in contradistinction to Donald Trump. I'll set aside the differences in America 40+ years ago compared to now, and instead focus on just that simple, narrow fact.

    Again, yes, Reagan WAS positive about immigration, while at the very same time aggressively preaching a strong sense of American Exceptionalism... and the Democrats fucking HATED him for it. And Hate is probably too light a word in this context.

    Extolling the virtues of immigrants clamoring to come here and preaching American Exceptionalism is the only goddamned thing that makes any sense. When you're opening your arms to Immigrants and telling them how awful you are, how racist you are, how much you're going to oppress them, that's not just stupide, it's evil.

    I'm guessing I'm probably one of the small number of commenters old enough to actually remember Reagan in office, and thus not getting my "memory" of Reagan from Washington Post articles.

    Trust me, the Democrats had no love for Reagan's open attitude towards Immigrants coming to the Greatest, Free Nation on the planet, where you could come here, assimilate, start a business and become a billionaire, and not be subject to the racism, religious oppression and taxation of the Old World.

    Read carefully that previous sentence and tell me what part of that formula your bog-standard Democrat would smile about after the "immigrant landed on the shore", which seems to be the only thing Democrats are concerned with.

    1. My first vote ever was for Reagan in 1984. I made the right choice although I voted libertarian in every election up until 2004 because of his War on Drugs and banning MDMA.

      Reagan's many flaws were overshadowed by his handling of the Soviet Union and his vocal support of capitalism.

      Negatives = EMTALA, expansion of EITC, detachment from detail and Nancy Reagan.

      1. LOL

        Nice try, Impostor Buttplug.

        But I refuse to believe Real Buttplug would be so shockingly stupid that he'd admit voting Republican in the 1980s — after pointing out less than an hour ago that the GOP was officially THE RACIST PARTY by then.

        Yeah. Sure. As if Real Buttplug would ever score an own-goal that humiliating. 🙂

        #StopSmearingButtplug

        1. Other than the Israel-Palestine issue race is the least relevant subject to me.

          I am anti-affirmative action but don't consider it a top twenty issue. Of course reparations are downright ridiculous.

          1. Youre for u equal treatment of people based solely on skin color... and call others racist?

            1. Some of his best friends are black!

              1. He knew Dee’s husband when he was a child?

          2. What is your opinion(s) on the Israeli-Palestine issues including the west bank? Should Israel end the occupation of lands taken in 67?

          3. Other than the Israel-Palestine issue race is the least relevant subject to me.

            That's pretty fucking ignorant:
            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semite

      2. My first vote ever was for Reagan in 1984.

        Wow. You're far too old to be this fucking stupid, and you spelled "Mondale" wrong.

        1. Nope! My first vote ever was also for Reagan, in 1984. At the election that my elementary school held where we got to play with real live punchcard voting machines and the results were tabulated. In retrospect, probably because the place was going to be a polling location and the equipment was going to be there anyway and they went "What the heck" and decided to give a lesson on voting, vaguely.

          Let's see, I wouldn't have quite been 8 years old then, so, second grade -- or as Democrats like to refer to it, "Prime Sexuality Discussion Age" -- I can believe that Buttplug is roughly my age, and still this retarded. There are, unfortunately, plenty of moronic Gen Xers.

          It is very likely that I voted for Reagan because that was who my father favored. Whatever, I was 7. The influence is a lot more bidirectional these days. 😉

    2. In fact, just a little anecdote about what Democrats really feel about Immigrants-- I remember the comedian Yakov Smirnoff was popular and was often seen in commercials towards the end of Reagan's presidency, and early years of Bush I. I was sitting with some very liberal Democratic friends and Yakov came on the television. He started with his typical opener, "America, what a great country!" and the very liberal, progressive woman in the room leaned forward and in venomous anger shouted at the television, "Why do I get the sense this asshole is on Reagan's fucking payroll?"

      This is why, when Reagan extolled the virtues of immigration while waving a bedazzled American flag and playing God Bless America on his Fender Stratocaster while standing in front of a 75' wide, two story amp stack, Democrats hated him in ways that would make a modern TDS-addled journalist blush.

      When Immigrants extoll the virtues of how great this country is in their thick, foreign accents, the racist vitriol would be spewed forth in short order by your average Democrat.

      Don't be fooled by any of this skepticism over "populism".

    3. I am old enough as well to remember Reagan. I grew up a conservative in the 1980's.

      My impression at the time was that Democrats at the time favored more border security because they viewed illegal labor as a threat to unionized jobs. I did not get the sense that they didn't want immigrants here because they feared the immigrants would "transform the nation", or make comments like they didn't want immigrants from "shithole countries" or any type of comments like that. It was because labor unions didn't want labor that threatened their privileged positions and the Democratic Party went along with that point of view.

      1. “or make comments like they didn't want immigrants from "shithole countries"”

        David Purdue was in the room and said he didn’t say that. What direct source do you have that he did?

      2. I am old enough as well to remember Reagan. I grew up a conservative in the 1980's.

        Actually cytotoxic, you grew up in the greater Toronto area of Ontario, Canada and were attending university circa 2012. Or at least that's the backstory you created for yourself before you changed handles after your abject meltdown when Godzillary lost in 2016.

    4. Yup. See also the quote from Spiked posted up top.

      Reagan wanted immigrants here because he loved the place.

      Democrats want immigrants here because they hate the place.

      Trust me, the Democrats had no love for Reagan's open attitude towards Immigrants coming to the Greatest, Free Nation on the planet, where you could come here, assimilate, start a business and become a billionaire, and not be subject to the racism, religious oppression and taxation of the Old World.

      Read carefully that previous sentence and tell me what part of that formula your bog-standard Democrat would smile about after the "immigrant landed on the shore", which seems to be the only thing Democrats are concerned with.

      I'm just quoting this here because it's true and deserves repetition.

      1. Though apparently I'm only putting half of it in italics... :-/

      2. Democrats want immigrants here because they think anti-immigrant Republicans will scare them into voting Democrat.

        But many of the would-be immigrants are hard-working, ambitious, entrepreneurial, Christian, and pro-family/traditional values types. They are natural Republicans, if Republicans don't scare them off.

        And other would-be immigrants are fleeing government run amok, and are smart enough to see that the Democrats are trying to make the same mistakes here.

        1. They are natural Republicans, if Republicans don't scare them off.
          Dont you mean - If the left wing media reports of what Republicans say or want dont scare them off?
          The left OWN almost all modes of reporting and media in the US... their reports of what the republican positions are are what the immigrants (legal and illegal) hear.

        2. There is not a single minority in the country that does not vote as a bloc for Democrats, from your mythologized god-fearing catholic wetbacks to your mythologized model immigrant Asian L.A. rooftop snipers. Black people hate Republicans like cancer despite Republicans having been the instigators of the civil war that led to their emancipation and despite the fact that Democrats opposed every single law to make life easier for blacks until the late 1960s. The ostensibly anti-immigrant Donald Trump got more minority votes than the decidedly open-borders, NAFTA-pushing Reagan. Either you're wrong about Republicans or wrong about your sainted minorities.

    5. I welcome any immigrant that wants to come here to better themselves and follows the law to get here. I also support making the laws easier and better and more efficient. Most legal immigrants come here and love this country and work hard, far harder than many of the millennials and gen zeros raised here do. I don't have any love for someone who comes here and tries to change our country into what they fled. I can empathize with illegal immigrants while also condemning their breaking the law to get here. Being against illegal immigration is not being against immigration and it's been stated so many times I'm not sure why it still needs repeating, but it does, time and time again ad nauseam.

      1. “I'm not sure why it still needs repeating, but it does, time and time again ad nauseam.”

        Because lefties like Jeffy are inherently dishonest.

      2. I don't have any love for someone who comes here and tries to change our country into what they fled.

        Ironically it is legal immigrants who are doing that, not illegal immigrants who can't (legally) vote and rarely illegally vote if for no other reason than they are illiterate.

  19. I'm sitting here, chortling to myself, wondering how Reagan would have reacted to 100% of the Democratic field of candidates in the 2020 runup raising their hands when asked if illegal immigrants should receive free healthcare.

    Remember, Libertarian Magazine, these were the adults you wanted back in the room.

    America is, well... was a libertarian country. It was founded on Capitalism, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, right to not have the government stick its nose in your affects and papers. Right to properly, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Those are libertarian ideals. The adults that are back in the room hate all of those things, because they're populist ideals.

  20. Hey look another leftard propaganda piece EXACTLY like those B.S. propaganda pieces about how Hitler ( The leader of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST party ) was ?right-wing? in a National Socialist versus Communist spectrum.

    Exactly as in that case; here we have indoctrination trying to associate "the voice of the people" socialism (i.e. populism) as a conservative-side threat... While the Democratic Party wildly lives by [WE] mob ("the voice of the people") suppression/enslavement democratic national socialism (Nazism)...

    It's actually quite humorous to see these articles and books that describe to a T what the Democratic Party lives by and then making a name-calling stamp for the Republicans...

    Project, Project, Project, Lie, Lie, Lie, Deny, Deny, Deny....

    1. Oh; And excuses, excuses, excuses... Why it's like leftards already know they're criminal - but compulsively re-assure themselves with excuses of projection and denial.

      If one has the right principles to begin with (Individual Liberty and Justice for all) they don't need to spend every waking moment making excuses for it.

    2. Every Neo-Nazi or Nazi runs straight to the Republican Party or its Euro equivalent.

      You can forget your doomed little campaign to cast Nazis as "leftist" because only wingnuts make such a ridiculous claim.

      The defining characteristic of Naziism was Aryan Supremacy which is straight right wing.

      The US Confederacy was right wing. What kind of lie can you make up to put them on the left?

      1. Which is ironic considering the Democratic Party has done more to destroy non-whites in this country than the most strident neo-nazi could ever hope for.

        Oh, and they had a literal KKK member in the Senate and kept him there until he *DIED* in office at 92 along with another Senator they kept in office until he died at *100* - who is notorious for his aggressive opposition to desegregation.

        You like to talk about the 'racist old white men' in the GOP while ignoring the racist old white men that make up the majority of the DNC.

      2. LMAO...
        You're so indoctrinated to with blatant lies it's not even funny.
        Nazi --- The acronym for National Socialism ( ideology of the left ).
        Abe Lincoln who freed the slaves was Republican...

        Next.........

      3. Conscription is "right wing"...sure. Conservatives were always against war and the draft until the cold war and the neocons took over. The South had conscription and high taxes and were not that concerned about taking private property to fight for the cause. Hardly "right wing".

      4. Can you name a single neo-Nazi who ran "straight to the Republican Party"?

        Spencer did not. Duke supported Biden.

        "The defining characteristic of Naziism was Aryan Supremacy which is straight right wing."

        Given that, literally, the only party to pursue such policies were Democrats, I do not know what the hell you're talking about.

        "The US Confederacy was right wing. What kind of lie can you make up to put them on the left?"

        They were unanimously Democrats. All of them.

  21. Pfft, this is why Democrats hate Yakov Smirnoff and love Ilhan Omar. Omar went into government, became a parasite on the taxpayer while saying "What a shithole country!". Yakov was entirely self-made, made people laugh and said "what a great country".

    Compare and contrast, baby.

    1. Goddamn, dude, you are on an absolute tear of really insightful commentary today. Right on.

  22. The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, by Matthew Continetti, Basic Books, 480 pages, $32

    You know, there seems to be no shortage of "what's-wrong-with-the-right" explainers coming from the chattering classes peppering our bookstore shelves, twitter mentions and recommendation lists.

    This seems to go back to the Douglas Murray thesis that we always seem to be able to work out when the right goes too far, but we never seem to be able to work out when the left goes to far.

    I submit that one could find oneself having dinner with a large number of prominent mainstream writers, journalist and other pundits. At some point you could ask them as a group, "When does the right go too far?"

    You'd immediately be leapt upon with exacting definitions, dozens of ready-at-the-hip examples and explainers, and then at some point you'd probably be ushered into a secret back room with a cork board displaying pictures of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and other such bottom-feeding creatures of the right, with Donald Trump at the center of a solar system of push-pins and yarn, radiating out in every direction.

    You'd re-enter the dining room and after the second course, you might then ask, "When does the left go too far?"

    At this point you'd be met with thirty minutes nervous seat-shifting, hemming and hawing, mumbling and chin-scratching, only to be given a few weak-tea examples of obscure characters, but always prefaced with half a dozen they've-got-a-good-point-buts and then any concrete examples would be couched in the undeniable fact that when they DID go too far, it was because they acted Trump-like.

    1. Q: When does the right go too far?

      A: When they're literally killing third graders by not letting them chemically transition to the opposite sex!

      Q: When does the left go too far?

      A: Sometimes they're too nice and that let's them get walked all over by Republicans!

      1. Basically. That disputing the 2020 election is viewed as being beyond the pale while disputing the 2016 election is STILL done by many Democrats displays a slight bit of inconsistency.

        The Right has decided to start to use the Left's tactics. So be it. The warnings were made for years.

        The Tea Party was quite mild and polite. And Obama sicced his IRS on them.

        ...so that led to Trump. Not as polite, but not a monster. And Obama and his cronies sicced the FBI on him and Clinton spied on him while IN the WH. And has suffered and is unlikely to ever suffer any consequences.

        ...what do you think follows next?

        The Right saw being polite still got them quashed.
        They then saw being less polite did the same.
        ...at the same time, we saw months of deadly riots give the Left most of what they wanted.

        So, explain why being nice is a sensible policy.

    2. Diane, we know when the Left goes too far. It's called North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, pre-1980's China, etc. That is "the Left going too far" that is almost universally recognized in this country. Would you agree?

      YES there are a few Sean Penn types who think we should be like Cuba but they are in the far margins of the discussion.

      The fact of the matter is, the US has drifted between being a center-right and a right-wing nation for a very long time. It's never been truly "left-wing" since the days of FDR, and even then, it was nowhere near Soviet levels of left-wing.

      What do you think would happen in this country if the *mainstream Left* were in charge for, say, 10 straight years? I am NOT talking about the ridiculous AOC types who want to ban cows and tear down every building in the name of the climate. I am talking about the institutional left like Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. Do you really think we would end up in an open-air gulag a la the Soviet Union? I think instead we would end up something like France and Germany today, center-left democracies that still have broad respect for market economics and basic liberties.

      By contrast, what do you think would happen in this country if the New Right were in charge for, say, 10 straight years? I am talking about people like Trump, Hawley, Cruz, etc. What do you honestly think things would look like? I think we would look a lot more like Orban's Hungary, where the government takes a much more active role in regulating schools and the media, and authoritarian measures are casually justified and accepted in the name of patriotism. But if you think I'm wrong, then say so.

      Perhaps one reason it is easier to see when the right goes too far is because we are already closer that end of the spectrum than we are to the extreme left side. No one seriously thinks we are on the verge of a communist revolution. But given what happened on Jan. 6, can you honestly say that the risk of political violence in the name of a right-wing agenda is totally unrealistic?

      1. You asked for it, so yes, you are wrong.

      2. Diane, we know when the Left goes too far. It's called North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, pre-1980's China, etc. That is "the Left going too far" that is almost universally recognized in this country.

        LOL, this didn't even bother to engage his point. He's talking about a conversation geared towards very basic policy and cultural issues, and you deflect towards

        Meanwhile, you can't stop complaining enough about the right "going too far," basically proving his entire comment.

        Perhaps one reason it is easier to see when the right goes too far is because we are already closer that end of the spectrum than we are to the extreme left side.

        This is so laughable it can't even be taken seriously as a ham-fisted attempt at left-simp gaslighting. Which side controls the schools, the tech industry, corporate boards, and the mass media again? Why are Democrats in purple districts begging their party to get off the woke train?

        But given what happened on Jan. 6, can you honestly say that the risk of political violence in the name of a right-wing agenda is totally unrealistic?

        Gee, when the side your lefty neighbors are on spent several months prior to January 6th rioting and burning cities with the encouragement of the previously stated institutions, where do you think the right might have gotten the idea that political violence is an acceptable tactic?

        1. It's never been truly "left-wing" since the days of FDR, and even then, it was nowhere near Soviet levels of left-wing.

          Notice the "no true scotsman" fallacy chemtard employs here.

        2. Which side controls the schools, the tech industry, corporate boards, and the mass media again?

          You think it's extreme woke progressives?

          If anything, it's establishment-type Democrats, who would be considered "center-right" in Europe.

          1. You think it's extreme woke progressives?

            It's empirically "extreme woke progressives," you dumbshit. The people running the places have openly admitted it.

          2. After being called out for his use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, cytotoxic doubles down.

      3. Chem Jeff is mostly correct here!

        But OF COURSE he will be opposed for speaking the truth! (Chem Jeff has the wisdom, as I also do, to stay anonymous, for fear of being burnt at the stake by the "correct" people.)

        For a fuller understanding of human nature's root in all of this, see ... The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

        “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

        1. Number of people killed by right-wing 'insurrectionists': 0

          Number of people killed by sarcasmic's chimpout friends: around 3,000

          It's almost like sarcasmic is a lying, stupid, drunk, child abusing welfare queen

      4. "Diane, we know when the Left goes too far. It's called North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, pre-1980's China, etc. That is "the Left going too far" that is almost universally recognized in this country. Would you agree?"

        So, "The Right going too far" is criticizing teachers trying to teach about sex and gender to kindergartners.

        "The Left going too far" are sheer totalitarian shitholes.

        ...and how, exactly, is China NOW not the Left going too far?

        If criticizing teachers discussing sex and gender with kindergartners is the "right going too far", how is teaching them that stuff not "the left going too far"?

      5. "But given what happened on Jan. 6, can you honestly say that the risk of political violence in the name of a right-wing agenda is totally unrealistic?"

        Shall we compare the BLM riots and 1/6?

        Do you REALLY want to go there?

      6. "By contrast, what do you think would happen in this country if the New Right were in charge for, say, 10 straight years? I am talking about people like Trump, Hawley, Cruz, etc. What do you honestly think things would look like? I think we would look a lot more like Orban's Hungary, where the government takes a much more active role in regulating schools and the media, and authoritarian measures are casually justified and accepted in the name of patriotism. But if you think I'm wrong, then say so."

        Wrong does not quite do justice to how far off you are here.

        1. Plenty of commenters here tell me that Viktor Orban is not so bad, that he is very popular, that he is doing what his people want, that he is a hero for standing up to the Socialist EU, and whenever people point out the terrible things that he has allegedly done, the typical response is "so what, it's not as bad as what the Left does in the US".

          So I don't understand why the comparison with Orban should be considered unflattering.

          1. "Plenty of commenters here tell me that Viktor Orban is not so bad, that he is very popular, that he is doing what his people want, that he is a hero for standing up to the Socialist EU, and whenever people point out the terrible things that he has allegedly done, the typical response is "so what, it's not as bad as what the Left does in the US".

            So I don't understand why the comparison with Orban should be considered unflattering."

            Orban is no more "authoritarian" than literally every single country in Europe. He just is not "authoritarian" in silencing his citizens to pursue interests of non-citizens.

            1. cytotoxic is an unemployed trust fund baby who never lived up to his parents' expectations and feels himself entitled to a position in society that he could never occupy by merit, so you can see why he would be in a 5 year long seething rage about 'ordinary people' usurping the authority he feels himself entitled to wield, but has not and never will because of his middling intelligence and lack of any form of skill or ability.

      7. Diane, we know when the Left goes too far. It's called North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, pre-1980's China, etc. That is "the Left going too far" that is almost universally recognized in this country. Would you agree?

        Of course I'd agree. The left goes too far when it happens in crazy pants faraway regimes! But nothing domestic!

        When does the right go too far?

        DON'T SAY GAY BILL DON'T SAY GAY BILL!

        Anything domestic that might apply?

        *thinks*

        Nope!

        1. (anything domestic that might apply to the left?)*

        2. "Too far" compared to what? Let's just say for the purposes of discussion that the American Left has gone "too far" when they are even further left than what is considered mainstream in Western Europe. Sound good?

          In terms of economics, I would say about 90% of the Team Blue economic agenda would be considered mainstream in Western Europe. Is that "too far"?

          The crazypants MMT shit is ridiculous. That is "too far" because it's a joke masquerading as pseudo-intellectual garbage. I would say what also distinguishes Team Blue from Western Europe is that Team Blue here is unwilling to raise taxes broadly, unlike in Europe where taxes tend to be more regressive.

          In terms of cultural stuff, I think you have to distinguish between stuff that people say, and stuff that is actually proposed in policies and legislation. Again I would say that most of what Team Blue *proposes* (not the crazypants shit that Twitter users say) is in line with what's considered mainstream in Europe. The only thing that I would say is substantially different is the racial identity stuff. Even then it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges problem as modern Europe never had the same connection with slavery and racial discrimination that America did.

          Am I wrong? If you think I'm wrong, how so?

          1. "I would say what also distinguishes Team Blue from Western Europe is that Team Blue here is unwilling to raise taxes broadly, unlike in Europe where taxes tend to be more regressive."

            Have you heard of their plans about student loan forgiveness?

            I ask because I have difficulty thinking of more regressive policies in terms of taxation (since SOMEBODY has to pay for it, and clearly, it is not going to be college graduates) in my history.

            1. His argument that the tax system here is "regressive" doesn't even hold water. It's the same tired talking point his dumbshit lefty neighbors parrot.

          2. Let's just say for the purposes of discussion that the American Left has gone "too far" when they are even further left than what is considered mainstream in Western Europe. Sound good?

            Lol. Yes, let us use countries that have actual no-shit communist parties well-represented in their parliaments as the yardstick. But sure, let's go with that! We have a higher corporate tax rate than any country in Western Europe. We have more liberal abortion laws (including infanticide) than any country in Western Europe, which universally restrict abortion after the first trimester. It is more difficult to open a business in Los Angeles than any of the Nordic socialist countries upon which you believe we ought to base our society and compare all of our laws. I can't wait to hear about how all of those problems were caused by Republicans.

            Even then it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges problem as modern Europe never had the same connection with slavery and racial discrimination that America did.

            Lmfao. Who the fuck do you think brought slaves to the Americas you stupid piece of shit? I guess Britain, Spain, France and Portugal are not part of Europe when it's convenient? More slaves were sent to Spanish and Portuguese colonies in central and south America than to north America (inclusive of colonial and post-independence USA). Historically illiterate is a great look on you, cytotoxic.

            In terms of cultural stuff, I think you have to distinguish between stuff that people say, and stuff that is actually proposed in policies and legislation.

            Lmfao. You mean like when you spent 5 years shitting in your pants about every syllable that came out of Trump's mouth despite his neither proposing nor passing a single piece of major legislation during his entire presidency? Or maybe like when you accused him of inciting an insurrection after telling a group of his supporters to protest peacefully? Surely you don't extend this courtesy only to the radical left wing nutcases whose collective nuts you gargle because you're a partisan Marxist fuckwit, right?

      8. " I am talking about people like Trump, Hawley, Cruz, etc. What do you honestly think things would look like? I think we would look a lot more like Orban's Hungary, where the government takes a much more active role in regulating schools and the media, and authoritarian measures are casually justified and accepted in the name of patriotism. But if you think I'm wrong, then say so."

        Okay... Your wrong.
        1) Conservatives biggest push on media was initiating an antitrust lawsuit. Regulating media is what the left JUST DID to Trump!!!
        2) Conservatives biggest push is for "school choice". Regulating schools to teach CRT and Gay-Marriage is exactly what the left IS DOING....

        Frankly; when you talk about your fears of having the "New Right" in charge for 10-years you're projecting from a lefty stance hugely and unreasonably...

        Consider for the 2-years what Trump did do.... Tax cuts, Job growth, ***De-Regulation***; it appears your 'fears' are completely unfounded.

  23. Enrollment plummets at Washington’s colleges, especially among men

    Lemme guess, the Patriarchy is at it again.

    1. Is there an easy way around their paywall?

      1. Try "Brave" browser, or, better yet, "Incognito mode" under "Brave". Here is the contents of the link... Let's see how badly mangled it is...

        Enrollment plummets at Washington’s colleges, especially among men
        April 24, 2022 at 6:00 am Updated April 24, 2022 at 6:13 am
        Alyssa Wittrock, an outreach staffer for Lower Columbia College in Longview, tries to interest Woodland High School students in higher education. She and her colleagues visit career and trade classes, like this auto maintenance one, that often have a lot of young men. (Erika Schultz / The Seattle Times)
        Outreach workers from Lower Columbia College, in Longview, have developed close relationships with high school counselors in the area and regularly visit classes, focusing on “dual credit” courses that give high school students free college credits. (Erika Schultz / The Seattle Times)

        1 of 11 | Alyssa Wittrock, an outreach staffer for Lower Columbia College in Longview, tries to interest Woodland High School students in higher... (Erika Schultz / The Seattle Times)More
        Skip Ad

        Nina Shapiro By Nina Shapiro
        Seattle Times staff reporter
        LONGVIEW — In 2019, Washington created one of the most generous college financial aid programs in the country. Compared with a program it replaced, the Washington College Grant allowed many more students to qualify for free or subsidized tuition. No longer would eligible students be denied aid because of caps tied to limited funds.

        By all rights, the state’s colleges should have seen a rush of applicants. Instead, enrollment plummeted.

        Community and technical colleges experienced a combined 24% drop between fall 2019 and fall 2021. Public four-year institutions saw a collective drop in undergraduates of nearly 7% during that time period, with some schools’ losses double or even triple that. Roughly 60,000 fewer students, in all, enrolled.

        What happened, of course, was COVID-19, though education leaders are still untangling the reasons the pandemic kept students away. As colleges scramble for ways to boost their numbers, they are facing hard truths about higher education in this state — namely, lukewarm enthusiasm and a gender gap that has women outnumbering men at virtually every institution. At Lower Columbia College in Longview, for instance, the share of male students fell from 31% to 28% during the first year of the pandemic.

        “We were a little stunned,” said Lower Columbia President Chris Bailey.

        The pandemic-caused drop in college enrollment is happening at universities across the nation, and so too is the gender gap, although it began developing decades before COVID showed up. Yet, Washington’s issues with college seem to run deeper.

        ADVERTISING
        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad
        “We didn’t have a college-going culture to begin with, and the pandemic has made it worse,” said Paul Francis, executive director of Council of Presidents, which represents Washington’s five public universities and The Evergreen State College.

        While for years Seattle has prided itself on being one of the most educated cities in the country, many credentialed residents hail from elsewhere. The state as a whole sends fewer high school graduates to college than the national average, with Washington’s rate, 60% of students within a year of leaving high school, falling about 6 percentage points short.

        Before the pandemic, enrollment had grown slightly at Washington’s four-year institutions over the past decade. But the state’s 34 community and technical colleges — whose enrollment tends to rise when the economy is bad, as laid-off workers go back to school, and fall when good — have seen a steady decline since 2010, when the last recession started to wane.

        “There are very serious long-term negative impacts,” said Michael Meotti, executive director of the Washington Student Achievement Council, a state agency that works to increase educational achievement. There’s ample evidence, he said, that college-educated workers earn more and withstand economic downturns better.

        Within 14 years after graduating from high school, those who get a bachelor’s degree or higher earn on average $24,000 more a year than those who don’t, according to state data. An associate degree or career certificate offers a $4,000 bump.

        There’s not a clear understanding of what’s behind Washington’s lackluster college attendance, nor the gender gap. “The challenge around men is something that the entire higher education community is trying to figure out,” said Jan Yoshiwara, executive director of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges.

        ADVERTISING
        Skip Ad

        Theories abound, tapping into the state’s blue-collar roots, notions of masculinity and changing ideas about college in the internet age. That’s apart from oft-heard complaints about the spiraling college costs and student debt, and a conservative critique of campuses as bastions of snowflake liberalism.

        The Washington Roundtable, a business group, is launching a study to get to the bottom of what’s going on, said its vice president, Neil Strege.

        Certainly, college is not for everyone, and many essential jobs don’t require higher education, as the pandemic has shown. Some of them pay better than ever amid the current labor shortage. Even as male college attendance declines, men still earn more on average than women and hold more positions of power.

        Other jobs do require college, but should they? Some argue that college has become an unquestioned and unnecessary sorting mechanism.

        Strege looks at the here and now, or at least the near future. The Roundtable estimates 70% of a projected 373,000 new jobs in Washington over the next five years will require some form of postsecondary education, whether it be a B.A. or trade industry certification.

        Amazon, Microsoft and other big local employers can import talent from elsewhere in the country and world, as they have been doing. Still, Strege said: “Our business people, they live here, they’re operating their businesses here, they’re raising their families here. They want Washington students to have an opportunity for those jobs.”

        ADVERTISING
        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad
        “Everybody seems to be hiring“
        The meteoric rise of high-tech can make people forget which industries long dominated the state: timber, agriculture, Boeing-based aerospace manufacturing, businesses linked to the port. “The state of Washington is historically a working class place,” said Margaret O’Mara, a University of Washington historian who studies labor and the economy. Heavily unionized, workers could earn a good living straight out of high school.

        “There’s still a very significant chunk of our workforce that is doing blue-collar work,” she added. High-tech has even contributed to it, its surge of transplanted workers fueling a construction boom.

        During the pandemic, work seemed more essential than college for some. “I need to help support my family,” Francisco Ramos said he heard at several Seattle high schools where he works as an outreach specialist for the Seattle Promise program, offering two years of free community college tuition and mentorship to all of the city’s graduating seniors.

        Most Read Stories
        In rapidly gentrifying Bellevue neighborhood, Walmart pulls plug on underperforming store
        ‘It’s a feud’: Brand new homeless shelter sits empty as leaders squabble
        Stephen Colbert gets COVID, ‘Late Show’ canceled: ‘I will do anything to avoid interviewing Jason Bateman’
        Alaska Airlines pilots schedule strike-authorization vote for May
        Enrollment plummets at Washington’s colleges, especially among men VIEW
        Parents or other family members have been laid off. They have gotten sick. The economic fallout especially affects the population served by community and technical colleges, which is lower income and more diverse than four-year institutions, said Yoshiwara, of the system’s board.

        But Francis, of the Council of Presidents, said he believes that economic reality has also driven enrollment declines at four-year schools — particularly because the pandemic has hyper-charged the job market for those without college degrees.

        “Everybody seems to be hiring and nobody can get the workers,” said Brian Wood, director of support services for Nippon Dynawave Packaging, a large paper mill on Industrial Way in Longview, which lies along the Columbia River bordering Oregon. Behind Wood were factory stacks sending steam into the sky, part of the landscape along Industrial Way, along with other mills, piles of logs and “now hiring” signs.

        Sponsored
        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad

        Trucking companies, desperate for drivers, are advertising jobs paying $85,000, noted Bailey, of Lower Columbia College (though most truck drivers earn far less, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). The school is trying to capitalize on the demand by expanding a commercial driver’s program. It is also trying to get the message out that even some blue-collar jobs now require computer and other skills that colleges teach, skills that can increase long-term earning power and options.

        That brought Edwar Guzman to Lower Columbia, whose campus of brick buildings sprawls across 39 acres. The 19-year-old said he’s in a program teaching him how to repair high-end, computerized cars. “I wanted more knowledge to get more money,” he said, estimating he can earn up to $40 an hour after he graduates, twice as much as he would earn straight out of high school.

        In the past few years, Lower Columbia outreach workers have developed close relationships with high school counselors and regularly visit classes, focusing on “dual credit” courses allowing high school students free college credit.

        “Does anyone know how many credits they get for this class?” Alyssa Wittrock asked students in an early childhood education class one Friday. Fifteen college credits, she told them, a quarter’s worth. If they go on to college, they’ve just saved themselves three months and roughly $1,400.

        An automotive class is up next. All the students are young men, many of whom take several trade classes a day in a large work space where construction of a car in the style of a 1923 Model T is currently underway.

        “Come to LCC. Join the automotive program,” Wittrock urged students. Or go to another college, she said, trying to encourage higher education in general.

        ADVERTISING
        Skip Ad

        Afterward, Joshua Hilker, a senior who is president of the school’s auto and welding club, said he is still leaning toward going into carpentry straight from high school. “They make good money and it’s decently easy,” he said, estimating he could earn up to $34 an hour within a year and a half.

        His friend Sean Barton, another senior, said he plans to see what the working world has to offer. In a year, he might go to college to study engineering. But careers that didn’t require college could be rewarding as well, he said.

        “If you go to work for someone else, you’re going to work yourself to death,” Barton said of manual labor. The trick, he said, is to start your own business, to take things into your own hands.

        School as “unmanly”
        Judging by the numbers, more men than women clearly seem to think they can make it without college. The degree of gender lopsidedness varies by school.

        At the UW, men comprise 46% of all undergraduates and just 40% of this year’s freshman class on the Seattle campus. The percentage of men is even lower at The Evergreen State College, 39%.

        At community and technical colleges, men make up 42% of students system-wide (excluding students whose gender was not reported or who didn’t identify as men or women) — and 35% or lower at six schools, including Highline College, Tacoma Community College and Lower Columbia College.

        ADVERTISING
        Skip Ad

        One way to explain the college gender gap is to look at who’s traditionally held the highest-paying blue-collar jobs: men, particularly white men. Women haven’t had the same kind of access to those jobs, observed Meotti, of the Achievement Council. The equivalent type of jobs women have pursued, such as a health care technician position, usually require some kind of credentialing, he said.

        College is now less exclusive than it was in the days when white men dominated, perhaps contributing to its societal depreciation, UW historian O’Mara speculated. A converse principle also holds, she noted. Consider: Computer programming, originally the domain of women, wasn’t considered worthy of huge salaries and prestige until men got involved.

        Edward Morris, a University of Kentucky sociologist, talked to a lot of male high school students for a 2012 book on gender and education. “A lot of them just experienced what was required in school as being unmanly,” he said, most noticeably among young men whose parents were low-income or had not been to college.

        Reading, homework, Morris said, “all that type of stuff was associated with inert activities. Whereas doing something like building a shed, that was something seen as useful” — as were science-related fields, which may help explain men’s preferences when they do attend college.

        The vast majority of teachers are women, which also may have something to do with male views of education, Morris allowed.

        He sees another factor as influential: the traditional image of men as risk-takers. “Breaking rules is something that is seen as kind of demonstrating masculinity,” Morris said. That could be getting in trouble at school, refusing to wear a motorcycle helmet or smoking in the face of countless health warnings. Or it could be circumventing college and striking out on your own.

        ADVERTISING
        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad

        Skip Ad
        Internet culture has stoked the allure of risk-taking. “You don’t need to have a piece of paper to make money — you know, that kind of idea is now being pushed, especially among young people,” said 19-year-old Zaidaan Shibuya. On social media, one can find out about various moneymaking “side hustles,” as he and two of his housemates called them, and they have dabbled in them.

        Still, they had decided to enroll in Seattle Central College, in part because higher education was important to their immigrant parents. “We came to this country for you to receive a higher education and become something,” Salih Mamme said, expressing the view of his parents, who came from Ethiopia. Mamme was upset when he had to drop out of Seattle Central recently for financial reasons.

        The three debated whether they could get a job in their field — computer science — without a college education. Maybe they could do a six-month coding boot camp, Shibuya said. However “Companies that are paying you six figures-plus, they still want a degree,” he said, and he plans to go on to a four-year school.

        None was troubled by being outnumbered by women on campus, not even a fourth housemate in a Seattle Central nursing program, where the gender ratio skews especially female. That housemate, Spencer Kneass, said he paid more attention to age; many of his classmates are in their 30s.

        The other three hadn’t really noticed the overall gender ratio because their computer science classes are mostly men, reflecting the different paths many men and women take once in college.

        “Now that you mention it,” said Abdikarim Salah, thinking about who he comes across outside of his classes, “I do see more women.”

        Nina Shapiro: 206-464-3303 or nshapiro@seattletimes.com;

        1. He didn't ask you to recommend him a shitty reskinned version of Google's chromium browser with a built-in crypto shitcoin scam like the retarded cunt you are, let alone to copy and paste the entire article, sarcasmic.

          To answer your question perlmonger, toggling "reader mode" in most browsers will show you the content without a paywall. Turning off javascript is another simple solution.

      2. Why does the shit gargling moron keep replying to me?

        1. Why does perlmonger ask ignorant questions... Which, by itself, is totes cool; we are ALL ignorant about SOME things... But then proceed to sneer superciliously at better-informed people who can actually answer some questions now and then?

          I suspect that it is tribalistic politics, pure and simple...

          You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
          https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
          From the conclusion to the above…
          These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

          SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an evil, lying asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

          1. What's funny as hell is you believe "doing good" is pointing Gov-Guns at 'those people' to take of them what you want but didn't *earn*...

            One thing is a dead give away about excuses, projection, denial-ism and leftards... They have to write pages after pages after pages of B.S. to try and thwart such simple concepts as *EARNING* something.

            1. I see! So you’re saying that the Intergalactic Sub-Smegmonic Boogoidian-Strawmen-Hybrids have deployed booger-beams (Those unspeakable BASTARDS) and have hijacked your tinfoil hat! You have my sympathies, but no more… I have no good advice for you, sorry! Other victims of the Intergalactic Sub-Smegmonic Boogoidian-Strawmen-Hybrids that I have known? They all ended up on Skid Row, and I could NOT help them!

              1. Dumbshit HihnSQRLSo's back puking up his copypasta again.

                1. It's sarcasmic. And yes, that's all he does. He's been pasting the same half dozen 5 paragraph essays for about a decade and a half. He's a mentally deranged piece of shit.

                  1. "...mentally deranged..."

                    "Mentally ill", my ass! Whoever disagrees with totalitarians is "mentally ill"! That makes YOU just like the communist totalitarian assholes of the USSR who used psychiatry to punish political dissidents, asshole!

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=During%20the%20leadership%20of%20General,that%20contradicted%20the%20official%20dogma.

    1. Trump mentioned like four times on the front page.

      1. They are very scared.

  24. Wait isn't this Bill Kristol's son in law? the idea that Kristol or his Trotskyite Father and fellow Russian immigrant "travelers" somehow represented "conservativism" is a fing joke. Neocons are for authoritarian federal govt, the Fed, deficit spending, wars (to push their utopia idea of "democracy", hedge funds/investment banks, and foreign regime change for well we best not ask why.

    The biggest mistake Reagan made was giving any power to those nut jobs. When the cold war ended, it was time to pull the plug on the whole administrative state but someone we got this Wilsonian bs pushed by "necons" which killed hundreds of thousands of humans (sorry but George W is a war criminal).

    So if your conservative and want a much smaller Federal Govt, no deficit spending ever, ending the Fed, and allowing free association in economic transactions, and peace you are a populist..yeah sure buddy.

    Neocons are a bigger threat of our liberty than "Islamic radicals" which they basically created.

    1. Neocons are a bigger threat of our liberty than "Islamic radicals" which they basically created.

      So, let's see. 9/11 -- neocons. 1983 Beirut barracks bombings -- neocons. Robert Kennedy's assassination -- neocons? The regular atrocities perpetrated by Islamic radicals in various Western nations outside U.S. -- neocons? Something doesn't add up...

      1. 9/11 and Beirut were indeed caused by neocons. No US Marines sticking their fetid, crayon-eating dicks into Lebanon for no discernible reason and there's no barracks bombing. No "global coalition" of entirely American troops occupying Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq for a decade and there's no 9/11.

        Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian Christian who attended a Lutheran school in Jerusalem, so as "Islamic radicals" go, you couldn't possibly have better demonstrated your ignorance.

  25. As usual the comments are far more enlightening than the article. Thanks to all who contributed. And thanks to Joe Friday and Chemjeff for not polluting the thread.

    1. Should have refreshed. Jeff shit all over the place but at least Joe Friday took the day off. Unless he's lurking below. In the shadows . Like right wing populism.

    2. agreed - Joe Frauday is saving it so he can talk about so made up number on long term covid effects but for only unvaxxed

  26. I’m a gay, Black man who is GOPProud like Caitlin and Milo. I’m perfectly fine with the new new Tepublican party as it shares the same political philosophy as I do. I refer of course to the rhetorical fellation of Dear Leader. I mean, that of the Republican Party of just 10 years ago: big military budgets, fiscal responsibility, distrust of the government, etc., etc. God! So many rules!! Now belonging in the GOP means just caring about one rule: namely, how far back I can shove Dear Leader’s clock in my mouth. It’s so much simpler to belong to the GOP now then when it had an actual policy framework.

    1. You'll never be OBL no matter how hard you try, Shrike.

  27. Now a new generation of right-wing writers is denouncing the American founding and trying to redefine American conservatism. Continetti rejects their project, insisting that "one cannot be an American patriot without reverence for the nation's enabling documents" and "one cannot be an American conservative without regard for the American tradition of liberty those charters inaugurated."

    I'd say he's missing the point. The emerging right doesn't call themselves conservative. They want nothing to do with conservatives. It wasn't the left that coined the term "cuckservative".

    Right wing and conservative aren't synonymous. There are plenty of movements on the right that have nothing to do with conservatism. Conservatism is only one movement on right, and one that's rapidly waning in influence, at that.

    1. Good point. Conservative and right-wing are not synonyms.

      1. You'd think he'd know these things. And yet, the author, MARCUS WITCHER, is a history professor, albeit since 2020, at Huntington College in Montgomery, Alabama, student enrollment of 900. He's also in his 30s so there is that.

        https://www.huntingdon.edu/directory/witcher-marcus/

        1. So an idiot who got a PhD in history or some "studies" major and now thinks he's intelligent

      2. Which makes it curious why you've been gibbering like the retarded drunken imbecile that you are about how everyone to the right of Trotsky is a radical right wing Trumpista.

    2. I'd say he's missing the point. The emerging right doesn't call themselves conservative. They want nothing to do with conservatives. It wasn't the left that coined the term "cuckservative".

      Speaking of missing the point...

      The "alt-right" coined the term "cuckservative" because so-called conservative politicians are mostly globalist warmongers who wear the label like their American flag lapel pins and with equal sincerity. If George W. Bush and Mittens Romney are your idea of conservatives then it's you that has the definition problem.

  28. Populists oppose elitists on who should rule, mobs or select few. But both want to control society, so fuck them all.

  29. "When Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R–Wis.) began his crusade against "the hidden Communists in America and their liberal Democratic protectors," for example, he found support in the Republican Party and in the few conservative publications that existed at the time—The American Mercury, Human Events, even the libertarian-leaning Freeman. As McCarthy's accusations multiplied and "became more outrageous, more galling, and more disconnected from reality,""

    It's almost like we never got a look at the Mitrokhin Archive. As though Ukraine didn't spill the beans in 2015. As if the Venona intercepts never happened.

    As if we didn't know that the federal government actually HAD been lousy with communist agents. The State Department. The Treasury Department. The office of Strategic Services. And, yes, even the White House. They all had communist spies in them.

    1. That is key. It's is not like we do not know that he was basically correct (and also, per the Congressional Record) tried to keep the investigations behind closed doors in case somebody innocent was accused.

      There were precious few people accused who were actually innocent pf the claims.

    2. McCarthy's problem is the way he went after communists. Communism is an ideology, not a nation. A failed ideology to be sure, but still not an enemy state trying to overthrow the US. So all his talk about communist spies was ludicrous because communism didn't have spies, the Soviet Union did. So he made a big stink at Hollywood, but no Soviet spies in Hollywood. Trumbo wasn't a spy. He was a script writer.

      McCarthy could have focused on the actual spies. But the conspiracy shit played better in the press and he ran with it until he took it too far and even his friends had to walk away.

      1. So all his talk about communist spies was ludicrous because communism didn't have spies, the Soviet Union did.

        tHaT wASn'T rEAl CoMMuNIsM!!!!!!

        Jesus fuck. If that's really the best you can do why not just keep your retarded cock holster shut to save yourself embarrassment?

  30. https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2022/04/14/scottsdales-dei-gurus-accuse-black-dj-of-wearing-blackface/

    This week, an ASU instructor, and a librarian, who hold themselves out as being Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) gurus, falsely accused a Black DJ of wearing blackface during a charity event for the Scottsdale Unified school district.
    Stuart Rhoden and Jill Lassen attacked the Scottsdale Unified School District’s Hopi Elementary PTA for hiring Koko Kim Hunter to host their charity auction. The two were informed after their attack that Mr. Hunter is, in fact, a Black man, who was not wearing blackface.
    When it was pointed out that the DJ is actually a Black man, Rhoden posted on Facebook:
    “Let me be clear, a Black man, apparently in Black face is an entirely different discussion than a White person. However, I did not state that the person was White. It was assumed that was my intent, and perhaps it was, but nonetheless, looking on his FB page (photos below), it seems at the very least he is in darker make-up if not “Black face” or I am completely mistaken and it’s the lighting of the patio.”

    1. “Let me be clear, a Black man, apparently in Black face

      What a balloonhead. This isn't a real-life version of "Bamboozled."

      Bonus LOL from his Twitter: "The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos." Self-awareness should probably take its place there.

  31. The author of this article, it should be noted, wrote a book on how the right is wrong about Reagan. His blurb includes talking about the real Reagan legacy.

    Is it possible this writer has some biases that might influence their read of this book?

    1. I quit reading at comparing Trump to McCarthy. That shows the author can't be honest, and is probably an avowed leftist. I used to be a Democrat, and have never been a Republican, the the threat today to our Republic and our system of Democracy is from the left, not the right. Although a libertarian I will vote Republican because the threat from the woke left so dangerous.

      1. The author is 32. Yet he claims to know the real Reagan. He likely doesn't know the real anything. 32!

        I have always been a Democrat. I am an immigrant, Latino, gay and dark skinned. The Reps have been vicious towards people like me. Yet, in 2020 I came to believe the Dems left me with Hillary’s steeling the primary nomination from Bernie Sanders, and her “basket of deplorables” was straight out of Communists “divide & conquer” playbook. Her funding the Steele Dossier made me switch party affiliation: Indep. The Dems today remind me of the Marxists my family fled but the Reps continue to be a self-serving, unbridled Capitalism, “me first, screw my neighbor”, party. We need more political parties and stop the monopoly of 2 party reign.

  32. Democracy is literally hanging by a thread. The situation is much too precarious to let politicians try to appeal to the people and give them what they want.

    1. The Constitutional Union of Republican States isn't hanging at all; it got snipped about a century ago by FDR. That's what has put the USA into Nazi Chaos.

  33. Conservatism (the American kind), like Liberalism (the American kind), is a broad coalition movement and NOT an ideology. When there can only be two choices then people get sorted into one of only two. Conservatism (of the American kind) has been a shifting coalition for more than a century, with one faction displacing another on a regular basis, but always there was a balance between three main legs. Sometimes a faction will shift between conservatives and liberals into order to find a home. Recently that was the working class union man, who was traditionally a liberal Democrat but shifted to the right when the progressives kicked them out. In consequence the conservatives lost their emphasis on free markets, and during the Trump era become outright hostile to the idea of free markets.

    The populism is too slippery to pin down, because it's an attitude and not an ideology. Bernie Bros are quite populist, for example. The current conservative emphasis on populism is disturbing because it brings with it a mishmash of ideologies that shifts with the moment. Only the attitude is constant, a disdain for institutions and statesmanship, and anything smacking of elitism.

    1. Conservatism (the American kind), like Liberalism (the American kind), is a broad coalition movement and NOT an ideology.

      You confuse ideological labels with partisan politics. And mere minutes after insisting that communism is an ideology and NOT a party. Wow. it's a good thing you're too fucking stupid to realize how fucking stupid you are.

  34. This is a pretty weak article. The author talks about paleoconservatives presaging Donald Trump, yet talks about Trump as a rejection of the "Old Right". But, paleoconservatism always echoed the Old Right. Hell, "paleo-" itself is a reference to "Old". And, in many respects, Trump's politics reflects the ideas and sensibilities of the Old Right. If anything Buckleyan neoconservatism (making conservatism safe for the Ivy League) is the aberration.

    The willingness of the paleoconservatives and "Trumpites" to embrace populism and dismiss existing institutions reflects their view that those institutions have been captured by a progressive managerial New Class whose management has proven mostly abysmal. Rejection of academia or the media or the establishment, generally, is hardly "denouncing the American founding", Bill Kristol's son-in-law's fainting couch, notwithstanding.

    1. Rejection of academia or the media or the establishment, generally, is hardly "denouncing the American founding", Bill Kristol's son-in-law's fainting couch, notwithstanding.

      Hell, rejecting academia, the media and the establishment used to be pretty standard libertarianism. Until the Marxists who libertarians spent half a century defending captured all of the institutions, and now questioning academia, the media, and the establishment is beyond the pale. It's almost like libertarianism was never about anything other than defending Marxism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.