Connect with us

Opinions

What is the appeal of the Republican Party to the skeptics of Trumpism?

Published

on

What is the appeal of the Republican Party to the skeptics of Trumpism

Recently, I had shared a very generic comment on several political social media threads, advocating that their should be room for assorted conservative-leaning political views in conservative news outlets and publications. Several staunch (and relatively newly-minted) Trump supporters took this position to mean that the current President’s political position is not good enough for me, and that I am essentially advocating for “resistance” within the party. Indeed, overtime some of these supporters have shifted in their own views from thinking that so long as particular conservative positions were met by the administration and the administration embraced the conservative values and fought off progressive attacks they would be happy to becoming firmly convinced that the positions the current administration takes, the fights its chooses, and the methods at its disposal are the only truly conservative views, positions, and methods that exist, and that anything divergent from these expression is either completely unrealistic or undermining the achievements of administration.

That was quite fascinating, because it revealed a great deal about the mindset of the core of the Republican party apparatus and activists at this particular moment in time. It’s worthwhile to take a moment away from the fora where any exploration of this situation is bound to deteriorate into accusations of fascism, totalitarianism, and so forth, and reflect on this mindset – and whether it may have a point. The issue here, of course, is that at least some of such voices are firmly convinced that all other voices within the conservative movement have failed – first, in substance, many of the leading conservatives considered more “moderate” have been intellectual frauds, not true to conservative values. They may also be  political traitors, as likely to aligned with the Democrats as with the right-wingers within their own party. Second, same subset of the Republicans who eschews anything but “Trumpism” at this point as illegitimate and having no place within the party, is concerned that all previous generations of Republicans with other views do not have the fighting skills to respond alternative to the progressive attacks, both in Congress, and throughout the nation.

As we have discussed, however, culturally, it will take people with both deep knowledge of conservatism and creative response tactics, that go beyond name-calling and outright mockery, to outwit a sprawling and blossoming progressive Cultural Apparatus.  The Trumpism proponents, in other words, by focusing on only one type of attack that can be successfully launched, as they see it, are actually limiting their battlefields to the hardcore political realm – where they have already actually lost a few battles, and may be losing more as experienced  Republican lawmakers in Congress announce their retirement one after another, with at least some of them hardline and very respected conservatives.

Admittedly, progressive “Resistance”, sophomoric and harmful to the nation as it is, may actually backfire politically in the upcoming elections, as independents, who may have benefited from the administration’s actual policy come out to support the lawmakers that are getting something done. However, Trumpism as an ideology is a rather confused lot. President Trump’s administration has moved on from its initial hard nationalist position towards a traditional Republican administration, at least in the domestic realm, which is what appears to be on everyone’s minds these days. The foreign policy, on the other hand, is a mish-mash, driven as much by inexperience, as by any ideology or foreign policy vision – and has seen abject failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. But that is for separate discussion. President Trump himself is swayed by various voices in his administration, and how he is going to be swayed depends on who is there to sway him, as well as on a host of other factors, that may not be replicable with anyone else.

The more interesting question, then, is not whether the Trumpists are right or wrong to welcome or block certain ideas or alternative voices, including, potentially the ones that they know nothing about, because those voices are a reaction to both the failures of pre-Trumpists, and skeptics of the excesses of the movement. The real issue here is who are the Trumpists themselves, what do they actually stand for, and how long will they outlast the end of the Trump administration’s tenure? It is extremely difficult to try to block out other people, when the person you have build your own outlook around does not have his own adherent views on anything, and essentially acts in concert with many of traditional Republicans of various degrees of conservatives.

If during the campaign of 2016, the Trumpian lot more or less identified itself with the Bannon faction, as the Bannonites have more or less lost their influence, and Steve Bannon himself lost the support of most donors, as well as the administration, they have to contend with the fact that Trump’s advisers now range from essentially liberal Jared & Ivanka, to assorted members of Congress of various degrees of conservatives, to Stephen Miller, the only remaining outpost of Bannonism – for now. With most of the foreign policy, excepting Israel, some aspects of the Iran policy, and counterterrorism, wandering in the wilderness, the Trump supporters are now faced with essentially having a position of “My president, right or wrong – and whatever he decides at the moment is right”.

The proclivity to embrace increasingly shrill and crazy candidates for the down ticket, however, is a passing fad, because it’s at odds with the President’s own increasingly traditional positioning on most matters, including, with the exception of tweets, and interpersonal relationships, most policy matters. Trump has made somewhat of truce with his former primary opponents and other critics – and that’s a good thing, because many of them have been steering him in the direction of the best positions his administration has taken so far. For that reason, the tendency of some of the Trump, supporters who were late to the game, to bash Trump’s former opponents as failures makes about as much political sense as progressive “Resistance” to a legitimate president. The administration is composed not just of Trump, but all of his advisers, everyone who executes his policies – and everyone who is focused on getting the job done. While political donors and activists are stuck on ax grinding, the people in power are settling in towards governance, and moving past old election gripes until such time as they become relevant again. In other words, President Trump is leaving a good portion of his own base behind, not in terms of election promises, but in terms of his administration’s political maturity and advancement.

So what does it mean for Republicans and ex-Republicans who’ve been turned off by excesses of Trumpism, or by the worst of Trump supporters, or by the seeming transformation of the party? The answer is simple – it means patience. For all President Trump’s personal shortcomings, the administration is taking many positions that any of the other REpublican candidates would have taken  – much to my relief. That means that the party is not being destroyed by factionalism, and that, surprisingly and imperceptibly, it is actually unifying – and increasingly around a more conservative platform, to the joy of many people. Those who have not quite yet moved on from the initial bitterness and infighting, will be forced to do so sooner or later – first, because the administration needs all the allies it can get; second, if they want to party to grow, rather than to shrink, they will have to sooner or later find a way to rebuild the burned bridges to the well-meaning critics (not the Resistors, obviously), and third, because “this too shall pass”. Inevitably, as the administration s hifts in a more traditional direction, input from experienced individuals who share the same ultimate visioned will be more welcomed, and after the administration is over, it is the people who have contributed to making it a success, not the people who have tried to turn it into a failure that will enjoy popular support and run for higher office. The room at the table for voices who want to be at that table is only a matter of time, and the most shrill and hostile voices, will eventually be outnumbered, because, let’s face it, when the only thing you stand for is reactionism to everything you don’t like, anyone who is working towards something constructive, will find a way to build around your corner of bitterness and upwards.

In other words, the State of the Union is strong, and the State of the Republican Party, though weakened by decades of poor candidates and unprepared members, will get stronger.  We are in a good shape, and the restoration of the Party of Ideas is officially on.

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer, based in New York. I can send something longer, but then it would go into all the other things I've been involved in and might be too long!

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. ed

    February 1, 2018 at 11:29 pm

    You are dreaming.

    Your post ASSUMES that “all conservatives will fall into line and join the TrumpTrain”. Wrong.

    Your post ASSUMES that conservatives will “come back” to the GOP because “they have no other choice”. Wrong. Trump and Priebus took care to burn all bridges in Cleveland in 2016 when they openly bragged about not wanting conservatives in “Their Party” anymore.

    Your post ASSUMES that ‘conservative’ == ‘Republican’. Wrong. “Republican” now stands more for “Trumpism” and all the lack of morality, lack of decency, lack of responsibility that that implies. There is a new party coming on-line – the Federalist Party. Many former Republicans (including myself) have left the GOP behind and have no intent to return.

    If the GOP can so easily and casually reject the conservative values in their own platform, I have no more in common with them or any more use for them. I will even vote against them (possibly for some of the less radical Democrats) until the Federalists come fully on-line with candidates.

    Your post is one expecting conservative Christians to ignore our principles and “support” (ie: approve of, lend aid to) Trump and his various illegal / unethical activities. That will not happen.

    The GOP was warned that alenating their base was a bad move during the Cleveland Convention. They ignored their base in their zeal and eagerness to get Trump elected. Now thay can pay the price – failure at the polls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Minnesota Primary

Published

on

Conservative Picks for the Minnesota Primary

Minnesota has a lot of action and potential relative to other states. Minnesota has three blue districts Donald Trump won in 2016. This means the right candidate can come along and upset the “blue wave” or at least mitigate potential losses. Minnesota is hopeful because in almost every race, there’s at least one candidate that doesn’t suck. It would be nice to see a little more enthusiasm in the Senate races(courtesy of Al Franken.) The GOP can look to make progress in what has been a staunchly blue state for decades. Minnesota has become redder with each of the last three presidential elections, so the Democrats reign is in trouble.

Best Picks: Jim Newberger, Tom Emmer, Jen Zielinski
Worst Picks: Carla Nelson
Best Race: District 7
Worst Race: Senate Special Election

US Senate Special Election

Karin Housely is the GOP favorite in this race. However she comes off as a RINO who would expand the debt. Her stint in the State Senate shows she really isn’t all that Conservative despite having a more Conservative 2017 session, which every other Republican did as well, so it seems. She doesn’t impress up front. Her main opponent is Bob Anderson. Anderson fancies himself as an outsider. He comes off as a populist rather than a Conservative, but that is preferable to the shining RINO that Housely would likely be. Anderson is anti-establishment so he is more likely to shake things up.

Conservative Pick: Bob Anderson

US Senate

The most serious candidate here seems to be Jim Newberger. As a rep in the Minnesota House, Newberger has an outstanding record. For that reason, it’s a good thing for Conservatism that he may walk into a easy victory here in an underwhelming race. Merrill Anderson is a populist and perhaps a conspiracy nut. He doesn’t reasonably stand a chance. Roque De La Fuente is literally running for Senator in every state that has loose enough residency requirements. He isn’t Conservative. He is not the pick here, but he understands taking chances.

Conservative Pick: Jim Newberger

District 1

Jim Hagedorn looks to reclaim he seat he barely lost in 2016. This is district went red for Trump, yet he lost by less than 1%. His main opponent is Carla Nelson, a state rep. She is ACU’s lowest ranking Republican in 2016 and was tied for a repeat in 2017. She is no Conservative.

Conservative Pick: Jim Hagedorn

District 2

Jason Lewis is the highest rated Congressman in the state. He’s not a perfect Conservative, but deserves another term. He is unopposed.

District 3

Erik Paulsen is an unchallenged RINO.

District 4

Greg Ryan is an unchallenged RINO.

District 5

Jen Zielinski seems to be the GOP favorite in this race. She seems to have the potential to shrink the government. She also wants to make the Republican Party the “Party of Choice.” This is good branding for incorporating issues such as school choice. The other candidates don’t appear to be as serious.

Conservative Pick: Jen Zielinski

District 6

Tom Emmer hasn’t done a terrible job in Congress. His Liberty score of 69 shows a more fiscally responsible Republican than a typical RINO. He faces the same two challenges as he did last time around. Neither of these candidates are particularly inspiring enough to warrant a course change.

Conservative Pick: Tom Emmer

District 7

David Hughes looks for a rematch after losing by 5% in 2016. Hughes is a solid Conservative by looks. His platform is right of Trump on immigration and healthcare. His opponent Matt Protch is campaigning as an outsider. Rather than a populist, he actually seems Conservative. This race is winnable for the GOP so Hughes is perhaps the best bet here. But he lost a race where Trump won. This indicates weak campaigning. So perhaps its time to invest in someone new? However Collin Peterson has been in since 1990, too long. He’s also way more vulnerable in an increasingly red district. Perhaps Hughes can win with a second chance, now that he potentially has more name recognition. Or perhaps Protch is the choice.

Conservative Pick: David Hughes?

District 8

The most serious candidate here is Pete Strauber who seems like a regular Republican, and that comes with a bad connotation. This is another flippable seat in Minnesota.

Conservative Pick: Pete Strauber

Continue Reading

Opinions

Liberal Republicans and House Freedom Caucus on same Trumpservative team

Published

on

Liberal Republicans and House Freedom Caucus on same Trumpservative team

After vowing to “fight the meritless charges” brought against him following an indictment for insider trading, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) experienced a political come-to-Jesus moment about the reality of his situation.

In a statement released over the weekend, Collins officially “suspended” his re-election campaign, which is just the Washington Doublespeak way of saying he’s ending his re-election bid because he’s still free to raise campaign money for his selfish political purposes.

While Rep. Collins is innocent until proven guilty, the repercussions following his indictment were swift, especially with the uphill climb the GOP faces in November. Democrats were ecstatic over the sudden opportunity to take a seat Republicans were expected to win. And right on cue, the GOP faithful lined up to support Collins, proving once again that conservatism has died within the GOP and has been replaced by the Trumpservatives.

In a statement of support for Collins who was an early support of Trump who served on his transition team, state chairman of the NY Conservative Party Mike Long said that Collins is “an excellent legislator and the most conservative member of Congress in NY.” An absurd claim considering Collins’ Liberty Score of 39% (F).

For the record, every NY Republican in Congress carries a failing Liberty Score with the most “conservative” being Rep. Lee Zeldin at 54% (F).

Sacrificing conservative values in the name of party loyalty comes as no surprise when NY Republicans are involved. After all, New York is the home of the liberal currently occupying the White House, and the longest-serving Republican in Congress from the Empire State is 25-year veteran Peter King, who carries a Liberty Score of 30% (F).

But the sad reality is that even so-called conservatives such as House Freedom Caucus members Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC) have made Trump and his agenda the new measuring stick of what constitutes a conservative.

In a Facebook post last Friday, I shared an excerpt from an email I received from the House Freedom Fund—the Political Action Committee of the House Freedom Caucus—asking for a donation in support of Jordan and Meadows, not because of their successes conservative track records, but because they have become identified as “Trump’s pit-bulls on Capitol Hill” working to push his agenda.

In the Age of Trump, it’s sad but not much of a surprise to hear that people like NY liberal Chris Collins and others who have worked for Trump are unethical Trumpservatives. However, when so-called conservative groups like the House Freedom Caucus begin acting the same way, it’s clear that conservatives no longer have a home within the GOP.

 

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Media

Who is afraid now?

Published

on

By

Who is afraid now

It could be the grudge match of the century, Ben Shapiro championing Economic Liberty while Comrade Cortez vainly tries to defend Socialistic Slavery.

In this corner, weighing in at 171 Pounds in Blue shorts with 62 wins, 23 by knockout, Kid Shapiro representing Economic Liberty.

And in this corner weighing in at [don’t you dare ask that question].. in Red shorts and Red lipstick with one primary win, Comrade Cortez representing Socialistic Slavery.

Ben Shapiro recently offered to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but so far it looks like she doesn’t want to take up the challenge. The most eagerly anticipated question for her being: How in Hades’ are you going to pay for all of your vote buying schemes with the country having over 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities  and 21 Trillion in debt?

In many ways, it’s too bad that Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is longer on intersectional ‘street cred’ than intellectual gravitas. A fair match-up would still see her losing given that she is trying to defend the indefensible. This is why we salivated over her overnight ascendancy in the ranks of the Socialist-Left. The abject inferiority of her ancient ideas would have seen a lopsided victory of epic proportions even if she were evenly matched with Mr. Shapiro. The proposed debate could be a virtual bloodbath, unseen since the Roman coliseum.

Two prime examples of why the Left cannot openly debate the issues.

Socialism doesn’t work in the real world, so one of the left’s favourite tactics is the illogical comparison between the theoretical promises of every supposedly positive aspect of socialism with the negative connotations of Economic Liberty [or the pejorative term used by the Left ‘Capitalism’]. This is because they cannot compare the practical results of Economic Liberty with the practical results of ‘Democratic’ Socialism. Most rational people would easily choose to live under Economic Liberty than Socialistic Slavery, hence the reason most socialist nations are akin to open air prisons.

The myth of Scandinavian Socialism.

Let’s start the Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen during the last presidential cycle, stating flat-out stating: Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

“The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.

This myth has been eviscerated a number of times, Here, and Here. But the National Socialist-Left is heavily invested in this lie, since it is about the only defense they have for base ideology. In actuality, these are small, culturally homogenous nations that can spend money on an expansive welfare state because the US taxpayers foot the bill for their defense. That is hardly amenable to the US, especially the part about the Constitutional funding for defense. We can’t exactly take money from ourselves to give it back, although the odds are there are some that might believe that could be done.

The Socialist-Left can’t afford to debate the Pro-Liberty Right because they will lose.

These examples are why that much-anticipated debate might not take place. Much like guerrilla fighters hiding in the jungle, the Left cannot come out in the open and engage in direct confrontation with the Right. They can only survive ‘debating’ in their echo chamber where their theories are somehow still viable after all the empirical evidence to the contrary. But sooner or later eventually everyone will get a chance to compare their ancient failed ideas to what actually works in reality, and they will lose the argument.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.