What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ The fight for the ethical and intellectual fiber of the GOP

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
On matters of racially motivated hatred, some Republicans "get it" and some don't. The remarks coming and not coming from various quarters of the GOP make that clear.


Surprisingly, the divide doesn't appear to be politically founded. It's, quite simply, a matter of intellect and rationally derived ethics.

It's been well documented and understood that the GOP long ago lost its intellectual way.
I shared the video of that debate not for the policy stances either individual took, but rather because cast in high relief the differences between Buckley and the so-called New Right. Since founding National Review in 1955, Buckley and his colleagues had been the spokesmen of an intellectual and philosophical critique of democratic mass society as well as the domestic and foreign policies of American liberalism. Beginning with the Republican nomination of Barry Goldwater (whom Buckley supported) in 1964, however, and accelerating in the tumultuous 1970s, the National Review crowd found itself challenged by a group of activists, journalists, and politicians whose criticism of the elite was populist, vehement, bipartisan, and anti-corporate. The question of how these anti-Establishment newcomers from the South and West fit into the conservative movement and the Republican Party, the question of where to strike the balance between populism and conservatism, has bedeviled conservative intellectuals and pro-business GOP officials ever since. [1]

This is the crisis of the conservative intellectual. After years of aligning with, trying to explain, sympathizing with the causes, and occasionally ignoring the worst aspects of populism, he finds that populism has exiled him from his political home. He finds the détente between conservatism and populism abrogated. His models-- Buckley, Burnham, Will, Charles Murray, Yuval Levin -- are forgotten, attacked, or ignored by a large part of the conservative infrastructure they helped to build. He finds the prospect of a reform conservatism that adds to the GOP's strengths while also, with partisan fealty, obligingly exacerbating its weaknesses to be remarkably dim.

From the Panama Canal to the Tea Party, from Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin, the conservative intellectual has viewed the New Right as a sometimes annoying but ultimately worthy friend. New Right activists supplied the institutions, dollars and votes that helped the conservative intellectual reform tax, crime, welfare, and legal policy. But that is no longer the case. Donald Trump is the vehicle by which the New Right went from one part of the conservative coalition to the dominant ideological plurality of the Grand Old Party.

With the New Right's newfound primacy in the GOP, the dilemma of conservative intellectuals, and their liberal opponents, is how to reform the party into one that that understands "conservative" and "contemptible" need not, as Trump has made them, be synonymous. Failing to do so augurs doom for conservative legislation and policies.



Note:
  1. It is noteworthy, for example, that Reagan sided with Buchanan and the populists in the debate over the Panama Canal. If he hadn't done so he would have alienated an increasingly important Republican constituency. "I think, ironically, that Reagan would not have been nominated [in 1980] if he had favored the Panama Canal Treaty, and that he wouldn't have been elected if it hadn't passed. He'd have lost the conservatives if he had backed the treaty, and lost the election if we'd subsequently faced, in Panama, insurrection, as in my opinion we would have."
 

Attachments

  • How the GOP got Trump -- Four Waves of Conservatism.pdf
    453.2 KB · Views: 36

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
75,100
Reaction score
24,283
Points
2,250
Violence is only acceptable coming from people that didnt get a permit to assemble. Violence is only acceptable if they are fighting for the right cause. The right cause is subjective and changes daily. Depending on what our agenda for the day is.
Dont you DARE call out the other sides intolerance and violence!
Gotta love partisan hacks!
 

task0778

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,534
Reaction score
5,562
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
Violence is only acceptable coming from people that didnt get a permit to assemble. Violence is only acceptable if they are fighting for the right cause. The right cause is subjective and changes daily. Depending on what our agenda for the day is.
Dont you DARE call out the other sides intolerance and violence!
Gotta love partisan hacks!

I don't think violence is acceptable for any cause. A just cause will eventually get changed, it's only a question of finding the smartest way to get it done in the shortest amount of time. To resort to violence is essentially admitting that either your cause isn't that just or you ain't smart enough or patient enough to effect change any other way, and that says something about you and your side. And yes, there's too much intolerance on both sides of the political spectrum.
 

PredFan

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
39,936
Reaction score
6,170
Points
1,170
Location
In Liberal minds, rent free.
On matters of racially motivated hatred, some Republicans "get it" and some don't. The remarks coming and not coming from various quarters of the GOP make that clear.


Surprisingly, the divide doesn't appear to be politically founded. It's, quite simply, a matter of intellect and rationally derived ethics.

It's been well documented and understood that the GOP long ago lost its intellectual way.
I shared the video of that debate not for the policy stances either individual took, but rather because cast in high relief the differences between Buckley and the so-called New Right. Since founding National Review in 1955, Buckley and his colleagues had been the spokesmen of an intellectual and philosophical critique of democratic mass society as well as the domestic and foreign policies of American liberalism. Beginning with the Republican nomination of Barry Goldwater (whom Buckley supported) in 1964, however, and accelerating in the tumultuous 1970s, the National Review crowd found itself challenged by a group of activists, journalists, and politicians whose criticism of the elite was populist, vehement, bipartisan, and anti-corporate. The question of how these anti-Establishment newcomers from the South and West fit into the conservative movement and the Republican Party, the question of where to strike the balance between populism and conservatism, has bedeviled conservative intellectuals and pro-business GOP officials ever since. [1]

This is the crisis of the conservative intellectual. After years of aligning with, trying to explain, sympathizing with the causes, and occasionally ignoring the worst aspects of populism, he finds that populism has exiled him from his political home. He finds the détente between conservatism and populism abrogated. His models-- Buckley, Burnham, Will, Charles Murray, Yuval Levin -- are forgotten, attacked, or ignored by a large part of the conservative infrastructure they helped to build. He finds the prospect of a reform conservatism that adds to the GOP's strengths while also, with partisan fealty, obligingly exacerbating its weaknesses to be remarkably dim.

From the Panama Canal to the Tea Party, from Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin, the conservative intellectual has viewed the New Right as a sometimes annoying but ultimately worthy friend. New Right activists supplied the institutions, dollars and votes that helped the conservative intellectual reform tax, crime, welfare, and legal policy. But that is no longer the case. Donald Trump is the vehicle by which the New Right went from one part of the conservative coalition to the dominant ideological plurality of the Grand Old Party.

With the New Right's newfound primacy in the GOP, the dilemma of conservative intellectuals, and their liberal opponents, is how to reform the party into one that that understands "conservative" and "contemptible" need not, as Trump has made them, be synonymous. Failing to do so augurs doom for conservative legislation and policies.



Note:
  1. It is noteworthy, for example, that Reagan sided with Buchanan and the populists in the debate over the Panama Canal. If he hadn't done so he would have alienated an increasingly important Republican constituency. "I think, ironically, that Reagan would not have been nominated [in 1980] if he had favored the Panama Canal Treaty, and that he wouldn't have been elected if it hadn't passed. He'd have lost the conservatives if he had backed the treaty, and lost the election if we'd subsequently faced, in Panama, insurrection, as in my opinion we would have."

Ha ha, a lying liberal proggie trying to tell us what's wrong with our party and how to fix it.
 

koshergrl

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
79,997
Reaction score
13,032
Points
2,190
On matters of racially motivated hatred, some Republicans "get it" and some don't. The remarks coming and not coming from various quarters of the GOP make that clear.


Surprisingly, the divide doesn't appear to be politically founded. It's, quite simply, a matter of intellect and rationally derived ethics.

It's been well documented and understood that the GOP long ago lost its intellectual way.
I shared the video of that debate not for the policy stances either individual took, but rather because cast in high relief the differences between Buckley and the so-called New Right. Since founding National Review in 1955, Buckley and his colleagues had been the spokesmen of an intellectual and philosophical critique of democratic mass society as well as the domestic and foreign policies of American liberalism. Beginning with the Republican nomination of Barry Goldwater (whom Buckley supported) in 1964, however, and accelerating in the tumultuous 1970s, the National Review crowd found itself challenged by a group of activists, journalists, and politicians whose criticism of the elite was populist, vehement, bipartisan, and anti-corporate. The question of how these anti-Establishment newcomers from the South and West fit into the conservative movement and the Republican Party, the question of where to strike the balance between populism and conservatism, has bedeviled conservative intellectuals and pro-business GOP officials ever since. [1]

This is the crisis of the conservative intellectual. After years of aligning with, trying to explain, sympathizing with the causes, and occasionally ignoring the worst aspects of populism, he finds that populism has exiled him from his political home. He finds the détente between conservatism and populism abrogated. His models-- Buckley, Burnham, Will, Charles Murray, Yuval Levin -- are forgotten, attacked, or ignored by a large part of the conservative infrastructure they helped to build. He finds the prospect of a reform conservatism that adds to the GOP's strengths while also, with partisan fealty, obligingly exacerbating its weaknesses to be remarkably dim.

From the Panama Canal to the Tea Party, from Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin, the conservative intellectual has viewed the New Right as a sometimes annoying but ultimately worthy friend. New Right activists supplied the institutions, dollars and votes that helped the conservative intellectual reform tax, crime, welfare, and legal policy. But that is no longer the case. Donald Trump is the vehicle by which the New Right went from one part of the conservative coalition to the dominant ideological plurality of the Grand Old Party.

With the New Right's newfound primacy in the GOP, the dilemma of conservative intellectuals, and their liberal opponents, is how to reform the party into one that that understands "conservative" and "contemptible" need not, as Trump has made them, be synonymous. Failing to do so augurs doom for conservative legislation and policies.



Note:
  1. It is noteworthy, for example, that Reagan sided with Buchanan and the populists in the debate over the Panama Canal. If he hadn't done so he would have alienated an increasingly important Republican constituency. "I think, ironically, that Reagan would not have been nominated [in 1980] if he had favored the Panama Canal Treaty, and that he wouldn't have been elected if it hadn't passed. He'd have lost the conservatives if he had backed the treaty, and lost the election if we'd subsequently faced, in Panama, insurrection, as in my opinion we would have."

Ha ha, a lying liberal proggie trying to tell us what's wrong with our party and how to fix it.
I know. It's like when atheists try to tell us who is a *good* Christian, who isn't, and What the Bible Means. Or when a racist pig tells us how racist we are.
 
OP
usmbguest5318

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,618
Points
290
Location
D.C.
On matters of racially motivated hatred, some Republicans "get it" and some don't. The remarks coming and not coming from various quarters of the GOP make that clear.


Surprisingly, the divide doesn't appear to be politically founded. It's, quite simply, a matter of intellect and rationally derived ethics.

It's been well documented and understood that the GOP long ago lost its intellectual way.
I shared the video of that debate not for the policy stances either individual took, but rather because cast in high relief the differences between Buckley and the so-called New Right. Since founding National Review in 1955, Buckley and his colleagues had been the spokesmen of an intellectual and philosophical critique of democratic mass society as well as the domestic and foreign policies of American liberalism. Beginning with the Republican nomination of Barry Goldwater (whom Buckley supported) in 1964, however, and accelerating in the tumultuous 1970s, the National Review crowd found itself challenged by a group of activists, journalists, and politicians whose criticism of the elite was populist, vehement, bipartisan, and anti-corporate. The question of how these anti-Establishment newcomers from the South and West fit into the conservative movement and the Republican Party, the question of where to strike the balance between populism and conservatism, has bedeviled conservative intellectuals and pro-business GOP officials ever since. [1]

This is the crisis of the conservative intellectual. After years of aligning with, trying to explain, sympathizing with the causes, and occasionally ignoring the worst aspects of populism, he finds that populism has exiled him from his political home. He finds the détente between conservatism and populism abrogated. His models-- Buckley, Burnham, Will, Charles Murray, Yuval Levin -- are forgotten, attacked, or ignored by a large part of the conservative infrastructure they helped to build. He finds the prospect of a reform conservatism that adds to the GOP's strengths while also, with partisan fealty, obligingly exacerbating its weaknesses to be remarkably dim.

From the Panama Canal to the Tea Party, from Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin, the conservative intellectual has viewed the New Right as a sometimes annoying but ultimately worthy friend. New Right activists supplied the institutions, dollars and votes that helped the conservative intellectual reform tax, crime, welfare, and legal policy. But that is no longer the case. Donald Trump is the vehicle by which the New Right went from one part of the conservative coalition to the dominant ideological plurality of the Grand Old Party.

With the New Right's newfound primacy in the GOP, the dilemma of conservative intellectuals, and their liberal opponents, is how to reform the party into one that that understands "conservative" and "contemptible" need not, as Trump has made them, be synonymous. Failing to do so augurs doom for conservative legislation and policies.



Note:
  1. It is noteworthy, for example, that Reagan sided with Buchanan and the populists in the debate over the Panama Canal. If he hadn't done so he would have alienated an increasingly important Republican constituency. "I think, ironically, that Reagan would not have been nominated [in 1980] if he had favored the Panama Canal Treaty, and that he wouldn't have been elected if it hadn't passed. He'd have lost the conservatives if he had backed the treaty, and lost the election if we'd subsequently faced, in Panama, insurrection, as in my opinion we would have."

Ha ha, a lying liberal proggie trying to tell us what's wrong with our party and how to fix it.
I know. It's like when atheists try to tell us who is a *good* Christian, who isn't, and What the Bible Means. Or when a racist pig tells us how racist we are.

Actually, it's not at all like that, but I've seen enough of your posts to know better than think you'd recognize that it's not.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top