J.D. Vance Completes Trump's Ideological Takeover of the Republican Party
Trumpism, not Reaganism, is the doctrine of the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future.

There is an old political critique of Donald Trump, perhaps understandable, that the 45th and favored 47th president of the United States has no ideology, that the Republican turned independent turned Democrat turned Republican turned independent turned Republican is an incoherent and opportunistic ragbag of selfish impulses and populist punchlines.
But Trump's selection Monday of 39-year-old Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) to be his 2024 vice presidential running mate cements an alternative reality that many have been slow to recognize: "Make America Great Again" is no longer—if it ever was—just a slogan on a hat, but rather a decadelong philosophical transformation of the Republican Party from rhetorical proponent of free markets, entitlement reform, and Pax Americana to protector of the entitlement state against immigration and the working class against the globe-straddling corruption of elites.
Asked Monday night at the Republican National Convention (RNC) by Fox News host Sean Hannity about his readiness to step into the presidency if need be, Vance said "I have the vision and the agenda aligned with President Trump to make the American worker better off, bring peace to the world, and to actually advance the agenda that's good for American citizens….As successful as he was politically, even after he was elected, certain Republicans didn't want to actually enact the America First agenda."
Many commentators over the past day have stressed this loyalty aspect, never failing to point out Vance's harsh 2016 words for Trump, back when he was still a celebrated young author and not a United States senator. But Vance's Hillbilly Elegy was, if not exactly a Trump 2016 blueprint (having come out only that summer), a harbinger of a new type of Republican political emphasis, focusing on blue-collar dysfunction and the plight of the forgotten man.
The GOP's new work clothes were on startling display during Monday night's keynote RNC speech, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O'Brien. Watching star-spangled delegates enthusiastically cheer on a union boss stumping against right-to-work laws, bashing Amazon and the Chamber of Commerce, and decrying "American workers being sold out to big banks, big tech corporations, [and] the elite," well, this is not your father's (or grandfather's) Republican convention.
As political pollster and author Patrick Ruffini argued to Nick Gillespie in March, Trump has been the primary change agent in a realignment of America's two major political parties. "Specifically, it flipped after 2016," Ruffini said, "when Democrats really seemed to [begin to] have a lot of trouble holding on to the broad mass of working-class voters, which are today defined as voters without college degrees."
The Vance pick is a transparent attempt to lock in those gains. "I think he has working-class appeal," Trump ally Roger Stone told USA Today. Trump in his Truth Social announcement praised the senator for championing "the hardworking men and women of our Country."
While some of the working-class partisan shift is more about culture and vibes—as Ruffini put it, Trump's new fans "saw a certain authenticity, and they saw somebody who spoke like them, somebody who was angry at the same people that they were angry at"—there are concrete policy implications as well.
Vance is perhaps the GOP's leading practitioner of responding to questions about Russia's invasion of Ukraine by pivoting to Mexico and fentanyl. "What are we talking about?" he asked at a voter forum in February 2022 as the invasion was imminent. "We're talking about a border 5,000 miles away between Ukraine and Russia. That's what our leaders are focused on. If we had leaders half as concerned about their own border as they were about the Ukraine-Russia border, we would not have a border crisis in this country."
This aspect of Trump's GOP was also on display Monday in Milwaukee, particularly in the awkward speech of technology investor David Sacks. President Joe Biden, Sacks proclaimed, "provoked—yes, provoked—the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion." The result: "Russia's military is bigger than before, while our own stockpiles are dangerously depleted. Every day, there are new calls for escalation, and the world looks on in horror as Joe Biden's demented policy takes us to the brink of World War III."
Again, this is not your father's GOP.
Vance, as Reason's Robby Soave detailed last week, is a proponent of raising the minimum wage, banning TikTok, and enacting some form of national service. The would-be veep "embraces tariffs and protectionism. He has called for the federal government to break up Google. He has even praised Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan, a Joe Biden appointee waging a one-woman crusade against major tech companies—and indirectly, their customers."
On some of these issues, Vance has struck an even more America First position than the man who repopularized that political slogan. Which underlines the point: Unlike some of his competitors in the veepstakes, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), Vance is more of a true believer, or at least sincere-seeming transmitter, of that collection of policy impulses we might call Trumpism.
In that, the GOP presidential nominee is displaying some ideological confidence. "Balancing" the ticket? No, Trump is, as Reason's Stephanie Slade observed Monday, "doubling down." Selecting an articulator of MAGA half his age will help Trump accomplish what few people could have ever predicted in July 2015: Change the meaning of the word "Republican" for an entire generation. Trump may or may not make America great again, but he sure is making the GOP nationalist.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Man. I remember so well Reason not mentioning the ideological takeover of the DNC with Bidens addition of GND in his party plank and adoption of DEI... instead pushing the return to normal and moderate angle. Seems like just 3 years ago.
Or picking his VP, Press Sec, cabinet, and ScOTUS nominees based solely on their skin color and sexuality
Biden appointees recap:
Vice President Kamala Harris -- disaster/laughingstock
Treasury Secretary Yellen -- disaster/out of touch (why shouldn't the Treasury track all 600 dollar plus deposits?)
Transportation Secretary Buttigieg -- disaster
Secret Service Director Cheatle -- disaster
Comptroller of the Curreny Omarova (withdrawn) -- actual Soviet Communist
Let's not forget Mr. Levine at HHS.
the plight of the forgotten man.
This plight is a real thing, no matter how many Trump critics, wish to overlook this. So what is the preferred solution here?
Team Blue: Massive redistribution of wealth to start some new program to give handouts to the 'forgotten man'.
Team Red: Massive rearrangement of the economy with protectionism and regulations and border control to create a privileged status for the 'forgotten man'.
Me: No one in the government can possibly understand what would be the best way to help any particular 'forgotten man', each one is a unique individual with their own particular life story. So, the government should get out of the way and enable the 'forgotten man' to help himself in the way he knows best. Reduce taxes, reduce spending (which is a stealth tax increase when financed by debt), reduce regulations, and if any government action is called for at all, it should be in the form of education to create the foundation of citizenship and core skills in the modern era.
But I am sure that is 'leftist' or something.
Criticism of Republicans is leftist.
Criticism of both sides is leftist.
Criticism of Democrats without praise for Republicans is leftist.
Praise for Republicans without criticism of Democrats is leftist.
Only praise for Republicans paired with criticism for Democrats is non-leftist.
So yes, your comment is leftist.
Poor, broken sarc. Always the victim.
Pour drunken Sarc. With that alcohol shriveled little nugget between his ears.
Did you get 2 or 3 jeff head pats for that? Still curious if he uses his hand or his gut overhang for those pats.
Jeffy feeds him shots of bottom shelf liquor when he’s a good Marxist.
The hollowing out of America - which created the Rust Belt and opioid America - was a creation of govt. And specifically the 'neoliberal' globalist Davos crowd of elites - which is very much what Reason is based on too. Which advocated moving from a GATT framework to a WTO framework. And advocated the US moving full-bore to supporting the dollar as reserve currency. Using 'free trade' as a semi-religious bludgeon rather than an economic notion.
When you kill a large swathe of the country that is based on manufacturing - and instead start subsidizing the financialized economy elsewhere - there is no reality that the forgotten man will somehow find his way into some bright libertopia. Govt created the winners and losers of 'free trade' and libertopia is not any solution for the losers. That is simply propaganda by the neoliberal globalist Davos crowd to drown the losers.
It is odd how the partisan politics of this reversed over the last four decades. Where the D's have pretty much given up their old New Deal coalition in favor of 'union' equaling 'bureaucrat'. And where the R's attract the blue collar demographic not by anything economic but by ratcheting up the culture war. Until a trust fund billionaire who never did a days hard work in his life started talking economics to that loser forgotten man demographic for the first time in decades.
"The hollowing out of America – which created the Rust Belt and opioid America – was a creation of govt..."
No, asshole, worldwide trade meant many of the jobs in the rustbelt could be done more cheaply elsewhere.
FOAD.
They could always do work more cheaply in other places. America was the high-wage country from about 1830 on. That's why people from other moderately-high-wage countries migrated to the US en masse.
What WTO 'free trade' did was ensure that multinationals could outsource work that they had previous done inside the company. With no friction costs at all - and while getting the sorts of subsidies from foreign govts that had previously only been offered by local govts in the US - via a supranational govt entity where multinationals have special access/privileges to control the terms of trade that are not available to either citizens or smaller companies
So companies simply moved their internal operations overseas. Where much 'trade' is no longer arms length between two parties but is simply an internal accounting fiction (but only for large companies looking to create 'global' internal supply chains). Those massive outsourcing decisions gutted entire towns. Which means that employees there couldn't even sell their house to move somewhere else because the whole town died at once. Those outsourcing decisions also resulted in companies investing overseas rather than in the US - and very little of that investment returns to be reinvested in the US. So those dead towns can have no future recovery either.
I know you can't possibly understand what this historical graph of US trade balances over time means. And honestly I'm done trying to explain economics to ideological idiots here.
Well said.
I'll give credit where it is due. Good show, Jeff.
Ross Perot would be proud. America would be a safer, more stable, better liked, and wealthier country today had he won the election in 1992.
It's too little too late now, it seems.
The tragedies that were the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies will only be appreciated fully over the coming decades.
Bullshit.
I'll bet you the legal title to your home.
After all, that's why the Donald got involved with the Reform party.
Perot ran mainly on balancing the budget, so he might not be too proud of Trump's record in the first term. He also ran on stopping NAFTA, which seems like a forgotten cause now, with China the bogeyman.
That giant sucking sound of jobs being outsourced had a big impact on 'flyover' country.
I'm not sure history will really understand what happened. Perot was more in the Gephardt mold of D's. Trump is not really focused on economics but on ramping up the 'culture war'. Demonizing the immigrant as part of the same divide and conquer game that before the 'globalization' movement was used to ramp up racial animosities among those at the bottom of the ladder.
Ramping up ? … or defending against?
As has been pointed out numerous times in these comment sections – when the [D] party, press and media ….and academia all push the culture war [castrate kids, leave living abortion survivors to die on a stainless steel table…. or suck their brains out after crushing their skulls inside the mother]… gay everything… etc etc….
… when that receives push back from anyone with conservative values… THAT is apparently ‘ramping up’ the culture wars.
Such mendacious BULLSHIT!
Racism in the US was always mostly about a divide and conquer strategy.
Before the Great Migration, in the South (which is where virtually all blacks lived) as a way for the planter class to create animosities between poor white trash and poor black trash. That was done through the D party but has nothing to do with the institution. It is about the divide and conquer power game.
During the Great Migration, in the (mostly) Midwest, as a way for the political/corporate elites to create animosities between (mostly) non-union blacks and unionized/unionizing whites. That was done mostly through the R party (and is why R’s ceased to be competitive politically in cities). But still it has nothing to do with the institution. It was about the divide and conquer power game.
Anyone who is still pretending that this is/was about some persistent DeRp institution is – A FUCKING USEFUL IDIOT for the same divide and conquer games that were used then. And it should be no surprise at all – that those same useful idiots are now being used to create divide and conquer animosities based on foreign/immigrant and nativeborn.
Nothing ever changes. Including stupid. That means you.
Nothing ever changes. Including stupid. That means you.
Boy, thats rich!... coming from you.
I dont deny there is a divide and conquer being played out. Currently the masters of that are the Dems and one of the main cards they play is the culture war.
It deserves push-back from every sentient person with a properly calibrated moral compass.
I guess the doesnt mean you.
Dems and Reps are not the masters of anything. They are a MEANS by which PEOPLE (elites if you want to call them that) fund/organize/etc to achieve what they want to achieve.
The entire point of this article is that the R's have completely changed what they stand for over the last 40 years or so since Reagan. I don't know whether you believe that has happened or could happen or might happen. But apparently you believe that it is not possible for that change to happen re using race as a means of implementing divide-and-conquer - or not possible for the D's to change at all - or not possible for the R's to have implemented amnesty for illegals in the 1980s - or not possible for people/elites to do anything because it is the parties/institutions which control everything always - or not possible for the people/elites to change the vehicles through which they operate because that serves their interest - or whatever
It really doesn't matter I guess because you clowns will just continue to parrot the stupidest notions forever without any awareness of reality.
And just who is doing the dividing today? It's whomever is emphasizing race as an important identity feature, i.e. Donkeys. The non-democratic Democrats are the party of racism, just like George Wallace said: Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
Not having watched this (my stomach is only so strong), would I be correct to assume that O'Brien was stumping to repeal right to work laws, not to pass them?
How dare you fact-check Welch! He's just a senile old man. Leave him be.
"I have the vision and the agenda aligned with President Trump to make the American worker better off, bring peace to the world, and to actually advance the agenda that's good for American citizens…
Oh, the horror!
He Welch, how is that Red Wedding planning for the GOP going? Why should you be taken seriously about people you so viscerally hate?
Hey now, heated rhetoric about killing you political foes is totally ok because boaf sidez.
Jeffy says so!
For reference:
Now would be a good time to throw a big cocktail party in New York or Washington, and invite every single conservative writer you know. #RedWedding2
https://x.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12
Trumpism, not Reaganism, is the doctrine of the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future.
By Reaganism, do you mean tariffs?
"This man is the nominee of the party of Lincoln. We are watching it become the party of Trump. And that's not just a huge loss for our democracy — it is a threat to it." - HRC, 2016
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1949
It is amazing how few of these false centrist both sides liberaltarians don't know what Reagan actually did while propping him up as someone to attack conservatives with.
It’s because the “false centrist both sides liberaltarians” don’t understand Trump voters, how could they?
It would be like me saying “Malcom X was opposed to white liberals” in the hopes I could change the voting habits of the Democrats’ most loyal demographic.
It’s embarrassing, and reeks of both elitism and desperation.
On some of these issues, Vance has struck an even more America First position than the man who repopularized that political slogan.
Rush Limbaugh?
Seems like Welch longs for the good ol' days when the GOP wanted forever wars.
#libertarians4ww3
Weird that Welch, a draft-registration dodger, grew up to be a neocon globalist warmonger.
not to mention the wishing death upon people what with the tweeting and all.
No he hasn't. Show me a warmongering quote from Welch advocating for war.
Again, this is not your father's GOP
You mean the GOP that rolled over for the Democrats at every chance they got? The GOP that took full advantage of being the minority party, providing plenty of Fox News airtime but zero leadership? The GOP dominated by Neo-Cons that switched parties because we weren’t blowing up enough shit in the Middle East? That GOP? You’re absolutely right Trump’s burning it down, and good riddance.
Luckily for Reason, the Democrats haven’t changed one bit with their globalist, one world bullshit. So it’s easy for them to know which horse to back. Certainly not the one that enabled the most libertarian Supreme Court in modern history, and kept us out of any new wars.
Now that the wide open border has become a political liability for the Democrats, Reason dutifully pivots to tariffs being the focus for their hit pieces on Trump and Vance. Vance being someone they know nothing about save what they’ve read on Wikipedia and in The Atlantic, most likely.
Whatever, guys.
Compare the number of anti-war articles at Reason over the last 9 years to more important libertarian issues, like food trucks.
a harbinger of a new type of Republican political emphasis, focusing on blue collar dysfunction and the plight of the forgotten man.
I personally think it would be best if we'd all just forget about the forgotten man.
Who?
I'm sorry... what was I saying?.... Oh yes - I'll have the hallibut please.
As I’ve pointed out several times, Reagan’s tenure in office was not something that the GOPe right was on board with. These guys were very much opposed to the far more populist, unabashedly patriotic nationalism of the western conservatives like Goldwater and Reagan, over the squishmallow policies of the northeasterners/midwest GOP. They thought Goldwater in particular was an extremist who wouldn’t adhere to their zealous devotion to compromise over principle, and undercut him and those like him at every turn.
If these people had remained in charge of the party in 1980, the Soviet Union would still be around. They’re nothing if not slaves to the popular consensus, and the popular consensus at the time was that the USSR was on the ascent and the US was on the decline. They wanted Bush or Anderson, and didn’t actually become Reagan devotees until he wiped out Mondale in 1984. They’re the epitome of bandwagon hoppers who pretend they were driving the thing all along. Completely insincere people.
Trump is most assuredly not like Reagan or Goldwater in most respects. But he reflects the same populistic, nationalistic character of the GOP base that’s been there for 60 years that absolutely terrifies the William F. Buckley wing of the party. And that’s a historical fact and a distinction that wing of the party doesn’t want people to remember.
If these people had remained in charge of the party in 1980, the Soviet Union would still be around.
No, it wouldn't. There's nothing material that Reagan did that wasn't already done with respect to the Soviets, The Soviets collapsed because they held onto communism, which is a recipe for bankruptcy, and there was economic boycott of the communist bloc by the west. Whereas, Red China survived because it had trade with the west and abandoned communism for partial free enterprise more akin to fascism. Nothing Reagan did was much different than his predecessors except his rhetoric.
My personal wish list:
1. Secure our Southern border; immigration is a good and necessary thing, but that doesn't mean uncontrolled immigration. We should know who is coming here, that they are not a danger, and that they can contribute to well being of our country.
2. Stay out of foreign wars in which we have no significant national interest.
3. Respect the Constitution, as it was written and intended:
a. appoint federal judges who agree [and are not "living constitutionalist" which is that it means whatever I want it to mean, today]
b. Constrain the government and respect the BOR.
c. Deregulate, and eliminate agencies that are not within the constitutional scope of government.
4. Balance the federal budget [primarily by constraints on spending] and address the federal deficit before it becomes a real and present crisis [at which point the government will not even be able to pay the interest on its debt]; deal with Medicare and Social Security before it becomes an actual crisis; which will include reducing benefits and means testing.
The Republicans are no panacea; but I believe they will come a lot closer to these objectives and do a lot less damage in the process, than the alternative.
My wish list:
1. Prohibit government coercion.
2. Prohibit government expansion.
Diminish government and taxpayer funded employment
Prison sentences for elected officials found guilty of corruption, which would include insider trading.
3. Exile all Marxists.
3. Exile all Marxists.
Violation of 1st Amendment. Instead, refute all Marxists.
1. Make it easier for non-criminals without diseases who want to work to enter the country, without quotas. That would largely eliminate the incentive for economic refugees to enter illegally, freeing border patrol to catch criminals. Republicans are not going to do that.
2. Trump was an aberration in that regard because he's not a career politician. One he's out of the picture and the career politicians take back the party, I am positive that they'll go back to being hawks.
3.
a. Yes Republicans are better.
b. Neither party is too keen on that.
c. Cutting regulations might happen, but all of those agencies are here to stay.
4. Both parties say "HAAAA HA HA HA HA HA!"
I'm pretty sure the current incentive is visible in places like NYC. Housing, foood, spending money via a debt card all funded by the taxpayer.
That's a result of letting asylum seekers wait inside the country for their court date which is years away. Trump had the right idea when he made them wait in the last sanctuary state they were in, usually Mexico, but Biden changed that.
I draw a distinction between asylum seekers and economic refugees.
""I draw a distinction between asylum seekers and economic refugees.""
The US government doesn't care about your distinctions.
Follow the law is something they have to believe in, else your idea isn't a solution either.
I don't accept the premise that people who avoid the cumbersome legal immigration process and enter the country illegally are criminals who don't care about any laws at all. That's the same argument drug warriors use to lock up potheads.
Except they don't care about the law and will openly tell you they don't as they violate the law.
Well… can you blame them? They have American NGOs that give them the information and the tools to game the system…. "its not their fault – they’re just following orders."
Has it occurred to you that most of them crossing probably don't even know what the rules are? They know they can pay money and someone will smuggle them into the country. Or perhaps just run across the border as they see other people do on tv.
What actions have these illegal immigrants done to make you think they will accept your rules?
That's asking me to prove a negative.
That's not a negative. You are stating they would accept your rules. I'm asking you to prove your point.
While your concept of reform might be well meaning, the reality is it still depends on the actions of others who have already show a lack of willingness to follow the rules.
Let's say your rules become law. If the immigrant's moral value usurps your law, where does that leave compliance for something you think is fair?
As I said below, if the choices are a cumbersome process that can take a decade or more and still not allow you in legally, or illegal entry, it’s rational to choose the illegal route.
If that was changed to a choice between a streamlined process in a reasonable amount of time, or illegal entry, it’s rational to choose the legal route.
So sarc you are now saying it is rational to violate the law just mere posts after claiming they would follow the law. Interesting.
Sarc says it’s ok to violate the law if it is in any way inconvenient.
Got it.
66000 crimes by illegals the last 3 years. But they all will just follow the law because you made a bald assertion.
Here is Jesse's "66000 crimes" put into context.
https://reason.com/2024/07/13/biden-and-trump-hope-to-tip-the-election-scales-with-working-class-proposals/?comments=true#comment-10638517
“Even assuming your number is accurate (which I highly doubt):
66,000 crimes over 3.5 years is 18,858 crimes per year.
18,858 crimes per year, divided by a population of roughly 330 million, yields a crime rate of 5.7 per 100,000 people.”
No Fatfuck, you don’t divide the crimes of illegals by the number of CITIZENS. You divide by the number of ILLEGALS. Nice try, you lying snake.
Then you need to add in the massive wave of crime that your Soros prosecutors won’t touch.
No, you divide by the number of potential victims, that is how crime statistics work.
Fat and innumerate.
""criminals who don’t care about any laws at all.""
Btw, I'm not saying they don't care about laws at all. I am saying they have given me proof that they don't care about our immigration laws. So if you create new immigration laws, I see no evidence of why they would follow that.
As it is the choices are this
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf
or sneaking in illegally.
If the choice was a much more streamlined process and the legal status that comes with it, or crossing the border illegally, I think most rational people would choose the easier legal process.
I just find it funny that you think they will do something different because you think it is good.
I just find it sad that you’re now making the argument about me. But that’s how someone “wins” arguments in the comments, right? Beat the person, not what the person says.
When you are talking about your opinions, it is about you.
And I don’t mean that as an insult.
First day of my critical thinking class, pretty much the first words out of the instructor’s mouth was, “no one care about your opinions”.
I am of mind knowing I could write the nicest rules in the world and people not interested would tell me to fuck off. I will not pretend otherwise.
Do you accept or reject the premise that most people are rational actors? Because that’s the foundation of my argument. That most people are rational, and make rational choices. Change the options and they make different choices. You seem to be rejecting that argument on the premise that they're criminals anyway so who cares what the choices are.
""Do you accept or reject the premise that most people are rational actors?""
A rational actor like you or myself would present our passport and enter a foreign country legally.
“”You seem to be rejecting that argument on the premise that they’re criminals anyway so who cares what the choices are.””
Wrong.
I’m noting that people who show you they don’t care about the rules are likely not to care about YOUR rules either.
And remember we are talking about immigration rules.
I’m noting that people who show you they don’t care about the rules are likely not to care about YOUR rules either.
So they're criminals anyway. Doesn't matter what the rules are, they don't care. Gotcha.
""So they’re criminals anyway. Doesn’t matter what the rules are, ""
Really? That's your take away?
Rules don't matter for people who don't follow them. Is that really a hard concept to grasp?
You can create the most liberal immigration system in the world and it will not mean anything to the fuck your laws crowd.
""I draw a distinction between asylum seekers and economic refugees.""
Isn't being an economic refugee one of the asylum claims?
I don't think so. Most claim to be fleeing violence.
If they are fleeing violence why come to the place with the most mass murders?
Are their NGOs teaching them to make false claims sarc? Work it out. Think slowly. Mouth your thoughts.
He doesn’t care. He love stolen borders and hates Trump. Thats all that matters to him.
""Make it easier for non-criminals without diseases ""
That would still require screening which would require using authorized access points and processes.
There is a reality that if you do not have the staff to handle whatever surge is happening this week people will have to wait in line. But they don't want to do that and that's part of the problem now.
It doesn't matter if you loosen the rules if you can't handle the influx.
That would still require screening which would require using authorized access points and processes.
Yes indeed it would. More access points and more people working them. It would also be accompanied by a more streamlined process that would take weeks or months instead of a decade or more. It would also free up border agents to catch actual bad guys.
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf
Why not just cross the border where I don't have to do those things?
Because you’d be in the country legally and would have all the benefits that come with legal immigration status including, but not limited to, not living under constant fear of being deported if you get caught and being able to assert things like employment rights without worrying about being deported.
""would have all the benefits that come with legal immigration ""
They don't seem to care about that now. And they are being offered accommodations in a manner that was not offer to American citizens.
NYC did not try moving earth for it own citizens like they have for the illegals. That diminishes the attractiveness of legal immigration.
You're talking about asylum seekers waiting for their court date. They are actually in legal limbo. And as I've said before, that wouldn't be happening if Biden hadn't allowed them to stay here instead of in Mexico.
You're conflating issues here.
You keep making false claims while having been given evidence. Only 2% of asylum seekers sought out work permits when they were offered lol.
https://nypost.com/2023/11/10/metro/2-of-the-140k-migrants-who-came-to-nyc-have-applied-for-work-permits/
But I guess we have to trust your ignorant bald assertions over factual evidence.
""You’re talking about asylum seekers waiting for their court date. ""
I don't think it's all one flavor.
Wonder if sarc knows how many even show up to their court dates.
https://nypost.com/2019/06/11/homeland-security-chief-says-90-of-asylum-seekers-miss-court-dates/
""Wonder if sarc knows how many even show up to their court dates."'
Again, and example of no desire to follow the rules. But Sarcs rules will be different.
I agree with Sarc that the rules could be tweaked for the better. But I also believe that it will affect only those who wish to follow them.
But I also believe that it will affect only those who wish to follow them.
You've seen that chart, right? What if someone can't get in legally through that process, or can't wait ten years? It would be rational to enter the country illegally if that can still improve their situation.
You're seriously making the argument that people who would enter the country illegally under those circumstances would still do so if they could enter legally in a reasonable amount of time?
That tells me you reject the premise that illegal immigrants are rational actors who would make different choices in different situations, and instead are all criminal who don't care what the options are.
That's fine. I'm not going to change your mind. Thanks for not being a dick.
""You’re seriously making the argument that people who would enter the country illegally under those circumstances would still do so if they could enter legally in a reasonable amount of time?""
That is a hypothetical. I'm talking about observable behavior.
""That tells me you reject the premise that illegal immigrants are rational actors who would make different choices in different situations, and instead are all criminal who don’t care what the options are.""
You would make a better argument if you were trying to convince me that because of their situation they are not rational and that is why they cross illegally. But we only have so much bandwidth to process them.
Btw, that doesn't mean they can show up at the border expecting everything to be taken care of them as if Uncle Sam is their new parent. Do that would be irrational.
Btw, at the risk of being dogpiled. I am an open borders guy.
But as a rational being, I understand the law trumps my opinion until the law is changed and law abiding means exactly that.
Need to finish the wall and augment it.
Somehow you missed not funding immigrants with taxpayer dollars. You always seem to forget this part. So fucking weird.
Why should the sick not be allowed in?
If I wish to allow a sick person in, why should it be stopped?
1. Genuine border security can only happen within the context of immigration reform. A big reason why there is so much of a problem at the border is because it is too difficult for nonviolent migrants to come here and do nothing more than earn an honest living.
They have no right to be here. Immigration should serve citizens first. But that is anathema to you, as you find the concept of citizenship to be horrifying .
Immigration should serve citizens first.
Does that include the citizens who wish to associate with foreigners on their own property?
As long as those foreigners are here legally, yes. Just stop. We’ve all heard your bullshit argument before. It doesn’t hold up.
If you want open borders, GTFO and go somewhere that has them. Maybe Somalia.
But you said immigration should serve citizens first. What about the citizen that wants to associate with a foreigner on the citizen's own property? You say yes, but only if that foreigner goes through the whole immigration system, which of course has quotas and a very large number of reasons why a person wouldn't be permitted to come here even if that person is not a threat to anyone.
Seems to me, in this case, the government, via immigration law, is not serving the interests of citizens who wish to associate with foreigners in this manner.
No, you don't get to pull that sophist argument. You can have anyone come to your property you want to, privies they can get there LEGALLY. And it is fully CONSTITUTIONAL to limit access to our country. Again, we are a constitutional republic based on a union of states, and with cohesive and defined national borders. If you don’t like that, get the constitution amended.
You’ve posed this same stupid, sophist argument dozens, maybe over a hundred times over the last several years. I, and everyone else here has shut you down every fucking time. Stop. This is a large part of why we deal with you harshly.
You’ve earned it. We have borders and rules about who can enter the US and not. Learn to deal.
Case closed.
Would be lovely, if not the habit of Dems not following up on their part of any compromise.
The problem is that the same people who vote for mass migration also don’t want any population increase in their cities and so they virtually block all new development with zoning, permitting, and environmental laws. That leaves everyone else who didn’t vote for immigration to either do the same and price their children out of their hometown or allow massive development and a flood of immigrants, turning their town into a third world country.
Not to mention the fact that immigrants are overwhelmingly of a socialist persuasion. Free markets become more and more threatened every time an immigrant comes from some commie shithole south of the border.
Cheap labor is economically beneficial, same as automation, and increases purchasing power. But really the only pragmatic way to obtain that is with guest workers who come in their 20’s, leave in their 40’s, and live separately from the existing population.
A little late for number 4.....
Gets later every year that goes by, and the medicine grows increasingly bitter. No known politician is going to seriously address this, because our electorate would have none of it. In that sense we are getting the government we deserve, which is carefully served within a very limited menu of choices.
So I suppose we will have to get to a Weimar level of crisis, at which point our solutions will either be leftist tyranny or rightist tyranny; not that anyone will be able to tell the difference.
Like I said, it's a wish list, not expectations. I can only go for the group that comes closest at this point.
VP Vance is gonna force you to join a union just like VP Pence forced the weaker sex into the Handmaiden camps.
Honestly, I’ve decades of first hand experience of how corrupt and fucked up labor unions are. So I’m no fan of them, especially their slavish devotion to the DNC, and their support of candidates that actively work against the industries that put food on their memberships family’s tables.
But consider: Trump was the guy that enabled the Janus decision with his selection of Gorsuch. And now has just selected a solid populist, pro-union, America First VP.
Has Trump found a way to get labor union support? After delivering the greatest blow to organized labor in our lifetimes?
That’s some 5D chess there.
Neither party has anything for libertarians.
Sure they do. Contempt.
Ha!
Of course they get contempt from both sides because each side has something libertarians like. Traitor to both sides.
I used to say the right holds libertarians in contempt for supporting personal liberty and the left holds libertarians in contempt for supporting economic liberty. But now that the right has abandoned support for economic liberty as well as personal liberty, they just hate libertarians. Period.
Lol. The dumb shit you believe. Personal liberty like what? You supported the fucking covid authoritarianism for fucks sake. You supported censorship.
He supported the murder of Ashli Babbitt too. Sarc is a total piece of garbage.
"the right holds libertarians in contempt for supporting personal liberty and the left holds libertarians in contempt for supporting economic liberty"
A simplistic narrative that truly only made some sense in the 80s and 90s, (and the exceptions to the above statement back then were many).
Today you have an authoritarian "progressive" left that holds contempt for Liberty in general. And as for the Right, the fact that Trump has tried to appeal to libertarians and that there are sitting libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress makes the above statement defunct.
Bullshit; simplistic, infantile blathering.
Yeah the Uniparty is the worst.
...
Why is that a critique? Traditionally Americans are suspicious of ideology, "vote for the man" (based on criteria of honesty, experience, and results), and think matters of public concern should be approached on a case by case basis. Americans value independence and flexibility, and like it when a politician "grows in office", departing from decisions that were predictable based on previous tendencies.
And what was Bill Clinton's ideology? Follow the weather vane?
Or Obama's. Or Biden's. Or HRC. In all cases the 'principles' seem to be 'more power'.
""the weather vane?""
If that's what you want to call it.
Waffle and sponge.
You know who else ruled their people with unwavering ideology?
Emperor Palpatine?
How is job protectionism different for tech firms, government or democrats? When Musk took Twitter he fired around 70percent of the dead wood staff? The gay boys screamed about losing their six figure bullshit jobs.
At least union contracts have metrics and quotas to, ya know, actually complete tasks. If the market will not take the higher labor prices a new type of delivery service will form (as UPS had already laid off 20,000). Or pick up stations, something like that.
In any case, if Republicans win, they should take a chainsaw to government jobs, bureaucrats, NGO grant transfers and cash equivalent welfare transfers, replace SNAP with low cost food items..rice and beans.
Starbucks is hiring public policy graduates, now make me a latte.
In any case, if Republicans win, they should take a chainsaw to government jobs, bureaucrats, NGO grant transfers
Obliterating the NGO-industrial complex wouldn't solve most of the fiscal hole we're in, but it's absolutely critical to do so in order to neuter the marxist activist training grounds that is their true function.
Research grants for the leftists burning U.S. flags are also indoctrination camps and bullshit jobs. Leftists competing for a paycheck
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/flood-of-fake-science-forces-multiple-journal-closures/ar-BB1mmDKS
No, it wouldn’t fix the budget to obliterate the NGO’s. But it would help Eli a tw their interference. Plus, destroying the prosperity of those people is a necessity for America’s survival. As is the destruction of all Marxists.
They could start by permanently eliminating any government positions that have ever been deemed “nonessential” is any budget standoff. Then implement a 5% staff reduction in the essential departments, followed by a hiring freeze. I'm not sure why every Republican candidate doesn't campaign on this every time -- it's not like the government employees are going to vote for them.
...
Was he? Interesting!
Which Union does he represent? Is the membership aware of this. More importantly, is the mafia aware of this?
Reaganism scarcely even survived the first Bush administration, which set out to overturn most of it's significant accomplishments. So let's dispense with the idea that Trump is displacing Reaganism.
He's displacing Bushism.
Taking the compassion out of compassionate conservatism and the neo out of neocon?
And so it is that Trump "Dons" those terms to become the Compassionate NEO!
He just needs those stupid sunglasses.
>>Trumpism, not Reaganism, is the doctrine of the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future.
lol Reaganism died when The Younger suspended free market principles to save the free market ... if not before
And Maverick McCain torpedoed his own election chances by flying back to Washington to make sure TARP passed.
he's one of the most difficult dead people to not speak ill of
Well, he shouldn’t have been such a piece of shit then.
>> the Republican Party ... rhetorical
exactly why redefinition required.
Politician succeeds by giving voters what they want.
Who would have thought?
I've never understood the criticism of Making the USA First. The reality is that every single nation should put their interests first before the interests of other nations.
For example, French citizens should be more concerned about their interests that the interests of other nations.
Although we don't live in a vacuum and occasionally need to rally to help other nations, this has been distorted by our war machine. Although war has not been formerly declared since WWII we have been in a continual state of war since then. We make it a habit of meddling in the affairs of other nations.
To me Making the USA First is more about looking internally, working on our issues first. It also a good message for individuals, stop blaming others and work on you issues.
I'd like to see justification for ANY troops stationed outside the US. Tell us WHY those troops are there.
I can understand logistic support for aircraft and naval units, but troops can be flown pretty quickly and modern warfare does not require large concentrations; they become targets instead of assets.
There's plenty of justifications. There just are not any good ones. The main justification is that other countries accept dollars as payment for their natural resources and in return we blow up their enemies, or, at the very least, don't arm their enemies.
I’ve never understood the criticism of Making the USA First. The reality is that every single nation should put their interests first before the interests of other nations.
Well, I think that is one of the softer, more generous ways to put it.
A slightly harsher but IMO more realistic way to look at "America First" is that it tends to create a climate of xenophobia. Rather than simply "taking care of our own issues first", it tends to be "scapegoating foreigners as the root cause of America's problems".
More to the point, however, since Team Red has a long history of trying to conflate 'conservative' with 'patriot'/'Real American', the "America First" ethos as practiced by Team Red tends as well to scapegoat other citizens who are deemed insufficiently 'patriotic' (aka not conservative enough) as the root cause of America's problems. They become "the other" just as much as the illegal Mexicans.
This is why, when Trump referred to *fellow citizens* as "vermin", he got cheers from his base because the citizens he was referring to were "communists, Marxists, and radical leftists" (in his words), i.e., people who should be "othered" because their patriotism is in question due to their beliefs.
So the America First movement, as I view it, has a strong component of xenophobia, insularity, and conformity. And that is what is grating to a lot of people.
"America First" also means deriding economists like Smith, Hayek and Friedman, and instead embracing debunked policies of protectionism and mercantilism.
And Ricardo. It's like no one has heard of comparative advantage.
The globalist elites decry America First populism because it slows down their agenda.
The military-industrial complex points to WW2 and Actual Hitler to decry "isolationism." Because Hitler was briefly appeased and continued to attack other nations, apparently the USA must be the world's policeman without end.
How do you not get embarassed bringing these guys up after proving you've never read them time and time again lol. Reposting a quote doesn't mean you read or understood their actual works dummy.
And if our policy is t ‘America First’, then what other country comes before us? The democrats never answer that. Of course they never have real answers for anything other an another government program, or more democrat power. Usually both.
>Trumpism, not Reaganism, is the doctrine of the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future.
The shit authors here write. Reaganism was dead in the GOP before Reagan was. McCainism has been the norm - use the culture war to grift campaign donations but fail to actually oppose anything the Democrats do. 'Accidentally' trip at the finish line and lose the race. This was a GOP that never saw a war it didn't approve of.
The shit authors here write.
It's not writing. This is just senseless emoting. This is Matt Welch throwing a temper tantrum so that people like Hillary "What Happened" Clinton and Rachel "Histrionics" Maddow can sympathize with him.
It doesn't have the least bit of intelligence or social awareness. It's pure, irrational emoting from an adult male coded to superficially read like a libertarian-ish think piece.
Like I said downthread, not one single person has refuted Vance’s (or David Sachs) take on Ukraine. Emotional response sure, numeracy response, nothing.
Welch really has become a sack of crap, hasn’t he? Or maybe he always was and it took Trump to expose him for what he really is.
Either way, he stinks.
The plebes are tired of the GOP, the plebes want Trump - therefore this is a threat to our precious democracy.
I submit that Trump is perceived to be a threat to our democracy, by a large number of people not just 'the elites', based on what happened on Jan. 6, 2021.
Imagine if this happened in a foreign country:
"A mob organized by the defeated incumbent stormed Parliament and briefly interrupted the transfer of power to the opposition candidate, causing damage and creating fear among Members of Parliament."
If you read that in the news, you might very legitimately conclude that the incumbent here isn't a big fan of democracy and will use mob tactics to try to subvert the democratic will of the people. And it has nothing to do about whether it was an 'insurrection' or not.
>>based on what happened on Jan. 6, 2021.
bro you've pitchforked this shit for three years. you still have the same pile and nobody has purchased any. close up shop.
A mob organized by the defeated incumbent stormed Parliament
Idiots, like you, believing Leftist media bullshit doesn't make it true.
Imagine if this happened in a foreign country:
“A mob organized by the defeated incumbent stormed Parliament and briefly interrupted the transfer of power to the opposition candidate, causing damage and creating fear among Members of Parliament.”
What you describe is a protest…
how would you describe this:
Sri Lanka’s Organic Farming Crisis:
Ban on Chemical Fertilizers: In 2021, the Sri Lankan government, led by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, implemented a sudden ban on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, pushing for a nationwide shift to organic farming1.
Economic Impact: This drastic change led to a significant drop in agricultural productivity, particularly in the tea and rice sectors, which are crucial for the country’s economy1.
Public Outcry and Protests: The resulting food shortages and economic hardships sparked widespread protests. The public was outraged by the government’s handling of the situation, which they felt exacerbated the country’s economic crisis2.
Political Turmoil: The protests grew in intensity, culminating in a massive demonstration where protesters stormed government buildings. President Rajapaksa eventually fled the country and resigned from his position
[thank you CoPilot for that summary]
Even this bot doesnt call that an insurrection.
Again, one doesn't have to believe that Jan. 6 was an insurrection to have legitimate doubts about Trump's commitment to democratic values.
I'd argue that EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN has evinced a dubious commitment to democratic values. I'd also argue that most show more disrespect to such values. Trump is not an outlier in the normal sense of todays politics and is definitely not amongst the worst offenders in that regard.
That you and others in the Dem media and establishment try to paint him as such above all others is disingenuous at best.. but we all really know its just pure tribal hatred.
I’d argue that EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN has evinced a dubious commitment to democratic values.
When Al Gore lost in 2000, he said “I accept the finality of the outcome”, and moved on.
When Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, she fumed and bristled and blamed the Russians, then she wrote a book, and moved on.
I am quite sure both of them still harbored resentment and bitterness about it. But they did, in fact, move on.
When Trump lost in 2020, he refused to accept it, even going so far as to try to convince Mike Pence to ignore the law and the Constitution on his behalf. He still doesn’t accept it. That is the difference.
Trump is not an outlier in the normal sense of todays politics
In 2020? Yes, he absolutely was an outlier in how he decided to challenge the results of that election. No one chose to try to take it that far, and that was wrong.
So - are you trying to tell me that Trump didnt leave office peaceably?
am i supposed to believe hes secretly still dug in there refusing to go these last 3 years Biden has been eating his icecream?
No.
When Trump, AFTER exhausting all of his legal options, organizes a rally on Jan. 6, because he cannot get over the fact that he lost, and at the rally the mob gets out of hand and storms the Capitol, that is going too far.
When Trump and his crackpot advisors concoct this illegal scheme for Pence to ignore the law and the Constitution to try to keep him in power, that is going too far.
And even if you disagree that it’s “too far”, it is STILL beyond the bounds of what is considered “normal” for a candidate to challenge the results of an election.
And even if you disagree that it’s “too far”, a lot of people DO believe that it is “too far”, FOR GOOD REASON, and they vote too.
That’s what this entire discussion was about – why Trump is perceived to be a threat to democracy. It isn’t because ‘he threatens the elites’ or some self-serving bullshit like that. It is because, by his own actions, he demonstrated thus to the satisfaction of many.
So, out of hundreds of thousands of people, a few hundred entered the Capitol building. Many of them wandering in as provably directed to do so by the cops. None had firearms. They killed no one. But this was Trump’s ‘big plan’ to take over the government? Dozens of unarmed randos? Not using the military, or the National Guard?
Do you believe that even if these people took over the building, which they did not attempt to do, that it would have any effect on anything?
Seriously, just fucking stop. The whole ‘insurrection’ narrative was bullshit to begin with. And so are you. You embarrass yourself daily here by pushing this refuted garbage.
Oh, and many legal scholars completely disagree that having Pence hold off on certifying the election up to right before Trump was scheduled to leave office was illegal. So stop with that lie too.
He’s perceived as a threat due to the lies you and your fellow travelers/traitors spread about J6. Just look at all the lies and fraud that came out of the J6 Committee. And all the evidence they’ve been found to have destroyed.
They’re liars, and you’re a liar.
Trumpism, not Reaganism, is the doctrine of the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future.
LOL. Imagine being on the same side as, but even more feckless than, Hinckley or Crooks.
You missed. Twice.
My father’s and grandfather’s GOP was split between the Goldwater wing and the Rockefeller wing. Parties usually have several factions (just like LP always has). Their GOP was the party of industrialists and Chamber, and small town and rural individualists. In my lifetime, in the Phila. suburbs, the doctors, lawyers, small businessmen have markedly shifted toward the Democrat party, while a portion of the blue collar working class is now becoming Republican. Just another historical realignment of politics in America.
The democrat party has also become overtly Marxist. The only thing that prevents them from being Bolshevists on steroids is the inescapable fact that 1) 2A makes that very difficult, and 2) as long as 2A exists, everyone they need to put down tends to be trained and armed. Unlike 99% of the democrats, who are a bunch of weak soyboy beta males and 250lb. Morbidly obese women. None of who me know their way around weapons and can’t fight their way out of a wet paper sack.
So the democrats are restrained, albeit just barely.
This isn't your father's GOP. It's your great grandfather's GOP.
Tariffs were pushed by Republican Herbert Hoover and was a mainstay of Republican economic theory in the 1920's. The Smoot Hawley tariffs brought international trade to a halt destroying millions of jobs.
Dumbest American president, George W Bush, implemented a tariff on steel to protect 140,000 jobs in the US steel industry. The result - the loss of 800,000 jobs in industries using steel. Many of those jobs went overseas, not because the workers were too expensive, but because steel prices were lower in foreign countries. The absurdly high corporate tax also sent many companies overseas in search of better opportunities.
Bear in mind, the worst economic growth during any president's time in office in the last 50 years, was 1.7% achieved by non-other than GW Bush. Only his dad came close to W's awful record. GHW Bush averaged 1.9% growth. The best growth over the last 50 years were Reagan at 3.5% and Clinton at 3.6%.
Sorry Trump only averaged 2.6% (pre-Covid). Jimmy Carter did 2.5%. Obama and Biden both averaged 2.1% so Trump can claim the best economy of the 21st century, but otherwise he's quite mediocre.
Trump-Vance promise us a return to those thrilling day of yesteryear, the Great Depression, unless spending is slashed along with tax cuts and deregulation.
Let the hand-wringing commence!
These guys are both flawed, Trump and Vance, especially from a libertarian perspective.
But also, by any measure, the Trump/Vance ticket is far more friendly to libertarian ideals than the dem ticket. If you have to choose to have one, you know which one is better.
MIC Freak outs over JDs stance on Ukraine. I haven’t seen anything , point by point, numerically refute this. We live in a post math world.
https://www.vance.senate.gov/press-releases/senator-vance-the-math-on-ukraine-doesnt-add-up/
Reason probably can’t come up with a more libertarian argument against our involvement in the Ukraine than Vance has on his own fucking campaign web page.
The GOP is now controlled by foreign born immigrants, Thiel, Musk and Sachs. The want control of the State and it’s resources and eliminate opportunity for Americans. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/16/the-trump-vance-ticket-is-a-repudiation-of-free-market-conservatism-00168578
It isn't Trump's takeover of the party, it's the people taking over the party. Regime cucks like reason do not want anything to change because they are entirely comfortable with the uniparty.
^exactly
It's a tHreAt To deMoCraCy when people vote for a guy who isn't regime friendly. lol
upvote.
Trump can reduce regulations, but cutting spending is an uphill battle because of democrats and RINO’ collaborators. Maybe the next Congress might be better.
The Republicans used to pay lip service to free markets. Now they aren't even hiding their true selves.
So this Sacks guy points out that Putin was intentionally provoked by the expansion of NATO and I should mourn for my father's GOP?
No, this must be Trump declaring who he can work with and thereby receive the least undeserved flak.
If we can look at things that way, then we may not have to receive polarizing influences that strong differences of political opinion lead an ultimately uncultured mind that struggles with grasping a “world totality” of the physical or material realm.
If love were essential practice to make sense of universal human need versus legacy neglect outstanding, globally; uncertainty were the very unbroached metaphor of insecurity whereby others spew out a bunch of facts of questionable value but one’s own mind cannot embrace further beyond prudence of practical caution.
America has a nicely appreciable history of religion-derived literate cultures that may be appreciated as something of uncontested love for mutual efforts to improve the world. Painting nationalism over the template of Trump’s prior presidential term and apparent policy destination may not be inaccurate, but doing so paints with color more powerful than can be sustained with ongoing regard. The sun were truly the hottest star in our solar system, but it is not the rational impetus of social fabric. The scope of nation would be too bright and too concentratedly hot for nationalism to win out as the definitive rational destination of choice. Just saying.