It's actually a pretty interesting discussion. Rush says he's never considered Trump a conservative but that this is ok-what Trump is about is not conservatism but Americanism which kind of reminds you of Jean Kirkpatrick's notorious assertion at the 1984 Reagan convention 'In truth there are not liberals and conservatives, there are just liberals and Americans.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8L-cuq17s
Here is Rush:
"So Buckley passes away, and that began -- this is all my theory. I don't know how many others agree or think I'm all wet with it -- but when Buckley passed away it then became an open competition for who was gonna replace him. Who was gonna be Mr. Conservative? Who was gonna be the guy that determined what was and who was and what isn't and who isn't conservative. The battle's never been won. I mean, there is no singular figure, particularly in the literary world, to have filled the Buckley role. It's an ongoing competition. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8L-cuq17s
Here is Rush:
"So Buckley passes away, and that began -- this is all my theory. I don't know how many others agree or think I'm all wet with it -- but when Buckley passed away it then became an open competition for who was gonna replace him. Who was gonna be Mr. Conservative? Who was gonna be the guy that determined what was and who was and what isn't and who isn't conservative. The battle's never been won. I mean, there is no singular figure, particularly in the literary world, to have filled the Buckley role. It's an ongoing competition. "
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/02/the_trump_movement_isn_t_about_conservatism_it_s_about_americanism
Interesting that Rush hasn't considered that he has replaced Buckley. Many have suggested he do so but he has always declined the role.
As such, it has taken on many different identities. And the Trump insurgency here has -- I don't know if the word "exposed" is right, but it has served to illustrate the fractious nature of conservatism as a movement. I have -- and I say this honestly -- I'm not trying to sound know-it-all-ish or condescending to anybody. Speaking for myself, I have never thought of Donald Trump as a conservative.
"My whole life I've known him. I know him socially, play golf with him now and then, I mean, I can reach him on the phone if I want to. But I've never considered him a conservative, and I've never considered him a liberal, don't misunderstand. But as far as a movement conservative, Trump hasn't been. I've never been under the impression that he is. And I've never held it against him."
"And I've never felt like, well, he's not worthy of speaking on things I believe in 'cause he's not a conservative. That's not my attitude. I know he's not a liberal. I know that he's nowhere near what modern day liberalism is. What I also believe fervently is that all of this support for Trump, this movement, whatever you call this that's happening with Trump, it's not about conservatism. And that doesn't bother me."
"But some in the conservative movement are pulling their hair out over this. And, like I mentioned Bret Stephens writing in the Wall Street Journal, this piece, it is just vicious to conservatives. It's just over-the-top vicious. It stands alone in that regard, but there are others in the conservative movement who are also writing pieces admonishing people supporting Trump, that he's not conservative, you're being fooled, you're destroying conservatism by allowing Trump to carry the mantle of conservatism. "Meanwhile Politico has a piece 'How Trump Exposed the Tea Party.'
"Here are some of the things that have been said by the guy who has galvanized the GOP’s Tea Party base and taken the lead in the Republican presidential race:"
“Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/trump-tea-party-populist-exposed-213111#ixzz3kg3bCDyT
Well of course the base is misconstrued. They aren't angry libertarians, they are angry populists.
You have to differentiate between:
1. The economic libertarian establishment
2. And the populist base-which has a real propensity to nativism. In the past they were attracted to George Wallace and later Pat Buchanan.
When you look at Krugman's definition of libertarian you see it's not so different. Right wing libertarians are rarely social libertarians. But the big difference is that the base is motivated by social issues whereas the establishment is about very doctrinaire brand of economics.
Interesting that Rush hasn't considered that he has replaced Buckley. Many have suggested he do so but he has always declined the role.
As such, it has taken on many different identities. And the Trump insurgency here has -- I don't know if the word "exposed" is right, but it has served to illustrate the fractious nature of conservatism as a movement. I have -- and I say this honestly -- I'm not trying to sound know-it-all-ish or condescending to anybody. Speaking for myself, I have never thought of Donald Trump as a conservative.
"My whole life I've known him. I know him socially, play golf with him now and then, I mean, I can reach him on the phone if I want to. But I've never considered him a conservative, and I've never considered him a liberal, don't misunderstand. But as far as a movement conservative, Trump hasn't been. I've never been under the impression that he is. And I've never held it against him."
"And I've never felt like, well, he's not worthy of speaking on things I believe in 'cause he's not a conservative. That's not my attitude. I know he's not a liberal. I know that he's nowhere near what modern day liberalism is. What I also believe fervently is that all of this support for Trump, this movement, whatever you call this that's happening with Trump, it's not about conservatism. And that doesn't bother me."
"But some in the conservative movement are pulling their hair out over this. And, like I mentioned Bret Stephens writing in the Wall Street Journal, this piece, it is just vicious to conservatives. It's just over-the-top vicious. It stands alone in that regard, but there are others in the conservative movement who are also writing pieces admonishing people supporting Trump, that he's not conservative, you're being fooled, you're destroying conservatism by allowing Trump to carry the mantle of conservatism. "Meanwhile Politico has a piece 'How Trump Exposed the Tea Party.'
"Here are some of the things that have been said by the guy who has galvanized the GOP’s Tea Party base and taken the lead in the Republican presidential race:"
“Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that.”
“As far as single payer [health care], it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland. … You can't let the people in this country, the people without the money and resources, to go without healthcare."
“People as they make more and more money can pay a higher percentage” of taxes.
“People as they make more and more money can pay a higher percentage” of taxes.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/trump-tea-party-populist-exposed-213111#ixzz3kg2oGdSZ
Right, that was supposed to be the Kiss of Death for Trump. But this mistakes the nature of the base-they oppose welfare for black and brown people but not for themselves. Listen to Massachusetts Tea Party radio host Howie Carr about how the establishment went after Trump:
"The RINOs sent all their sluggers out there to take him deep. First was Juan Ellis Bush, the guy who describes the heinous crimes of “valedictorians,” which is Jeb-speak for illegal aliens– as “acts of love.” Just ask Kate Steinle’s family. Say Buenos noches, Juan."
"Then there was Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie. He lectures you to give up your Social Security that you paid into in order to provide for everyone who couldn’t be bothered to work, some of whom may even be US citizens. Gov. Krispy can’t figure out why he’s not catching fire – not even a grease fire at the fryolator."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/trump-thumbs-his-nose-at-gop-grover.html
Just yesterday Tom Brown left this link to an important piece Krugman wrote about 'libertarians.'
"Mike, I love it. Limbaugh has one other concern in the complex cost function he's trying to optimize... he doesn't want to flip flop so fast that it becomes noticeable or embarrassing. I think Krugman nailed modern conservatism here (or at least the guy who wrote the book he links to does): it's all about:
"What happened to conservative principles?
"Actually, nothing — because those alleged principles were never real. Conservative religiosity, conservative faith in markets, were never about living a godly life or letting the invisible hand promote entrepreneurship. Instead, it was all as Corey Robin describes it: Conservatism is a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace."
It’s really about who’s boss, and making sure that the man in charge stays boss."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/rush-limbaugh-on-trumps-snubbing-grover.html?showComment=1441239969813#c1618001966560473996
Back to Poltico:
"Only one of two conclusions can be drawn here. Either the Tea Party base—which the media would have us think mainly consists of angry libertarians inveighing against taxes and runaway big government—hasn’t really been listening to Donald Trump, who made all the above statements, or, alternatively, most of the media have read the Tea Party and its true aims and ambitions entirely wrong."
Right, that was supposed to be the Kiss of Death for Trump. But this mistakes the nature of the base-they oppose welfare for black and brown people but not for themselves. Listen to Massachusetts Tea Party radio host Howie Carr about how the establishment went after Trump:
"The RINOs sent all their sluggers out there to take him deep. First was Juan Ellis Bush, the guy who describes the heinous crimes of “valedictorians,” which is Jeb-speak for illegal aliens– as “acts of love.” Just ask Kate Steinle’s family. Say Buenos noches, Juan."
"Then there was Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie. He lectures you to give up your Social Security that you paid into in order to provide for everyone who couldn’t be bothered to work, some of whom may even be US citizens. Gov. Krispy can’t figure out why he’s not catching fire – not even a grease fire at the fryolator."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/trump-thumbs-his-nose-at-gop-grover.html
Just yesterday Tom Brown left this link to an important piece Krugman wrote about 'libertarians.'
"Mike, I love it. Limbaugh has one other concern in the complex cost function he's trying to optimize... he doesn't want to flip flop so fast that it becomes noticeable or embarrassing. I think Krugman nailed modern conservatism here (or at least the guy who wrote the book he links to does): it's all about:
"What happened to conservative principles?
"Actually, nothing — because those alleged principles were never real. Conservative religiosity, conservative faith in markets, were never about living a godly life or letting the invisible hand promote entrepreneurship. Instead, it was all as Corey Robin describes it: Conservatism is a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace."
It’s really about who’s boss, and making sure that the man in charge stays boss."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/rush-limbaugh-on-trumps-snubbing-grover.html?showComment=1441239969813#c1618001966560473996
Back to Poltico:
"Only one of two conclusions can be drawn here. Either the Tea Party base—which the media would have us think mainly consists of angry libertarians inveighing against taxes and runaway big government—hasn’t really been listening to Donald Trump, who made all the above statements, or, alternatively, most of the media have read the Tea Party and its true aims and ambitions entirely wrong."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/trump-tea-party-populist-exposed-213111#ixzz3kg3bCDyT
Well of course the base is misconstrued. They aren't angry libertarians, they are angry populists.
You have to differentiate between:
1. The economic libertarian establishment
2. And the populist base-which has a real propensity to nativism. In the past they were attracted to George Wallace and later Pat Buchanan.
When you look at Krugman's definition of libertarian you see it's not so different. Right wing libertarians are rarely social libertarians. But the big difference is that the base is motivated by social issues whereas the establishment is about very doctrinaire brand of economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment