Bi-Polarizing Trump

Trumpby C. Edmund Wright   7/28/15
Without a doubt, Donald Trump has done the conservative base some tremendous favors recently. He instinctively understands the mood of the country on key issues and is tapping into the anger at all of Washington — all Democrats, the Jurassic media, the Republican establishment politicians, consultants, lobbyists, and donors, and of course the conservative establishment media — as only Donald Trump can do. He is demonstrating that his instincts are superior to most politicians, and he certainly has all the right enemies at the moment.

As a direct result, his poll numbers are surging. There is correlation here.

This is very refreshing. Moreover, it’s extremely important. This blunt tone and accompanying fearlessness are exactly what these times call for. It should be a teachable moment to all who are seeking the nomination, although it seems only Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina – who are both predisposed to being blunt – are enjoying it. These strong attacks on Washington are from the right, and they are rightly harsh.

And in predictable and formulaic fashion, the Washington-Manhattan establishment calls Trump polarizing. So what’s your point?  The Republicans win elections when they are polarizing. They lose every time they run scared of being polarizing.

Trump is not scared of that, and I wish it were that simple with Trump. But it is not. As he proved (again) this weekend, Donald Trump is more accurately described as bi-polarizing. In a period of a few days, he occupied both the right and left flanks while on attack. Specifically in his cross-hairs were George W. Bush and Scott Walker. He did a pretty good Debbie Wasserman Schultz impression in laying out his case against them.

Now if you want to attack Bush and Walker, that’s fine — but do so from the right! There is room there, especially with any Bush. Don’t channel Obama and Biden in campaign mode. This is very problematic in light of the fact that Trump was more of a liberal Democrat than a Republican for most of his adult life.

On Morning Joe he stated “when the economy crashed so horribly under George Bush, because of mistakes they (the Republicans) made with banking and a lot of other things,WTF I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.” But it was precisely the Democrats who did do it, and Bush tried to stop if as far back as 2003. Has he ever heard of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? So much for equating personal wealth with being an economic genius.

To clarify further, he’s incredibly passionate and talented in expressing conservative ideas on a number of issues. However, do we need the recent convert as our senior pastor after 25 minutes?

No, because no recent convert can possibly be reliable… in church, or the White House, or anywhere else. He has not shown any long-term conservative intuition.

His Bush attack was based on the same misconception that has given Barack Obama two straight wins. We know this because the percentage of people who voted for Obama was nearly identical to the percentage of people who still blamed Bush for the economy — even in 2012! This was aided by the fact that both the McCain and Romney Campaigns agreed with the liberals that Bush was to blame. Apparently, Donald agrees.  Do we really need to try this again?

Now this is not to defend Bush. But it’s important that we shift the focus from “who” and think “why” for just a moment. The economy crashed while Bush was in the White House, but not because he was there. When you trace many years of the policies related to housing and mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — in addition to stringent anti-energy EPA restrictions — what you understand that if Bush were to blame, it was only because he did too little to roll back thirty years of applied liberalism. And he was not president during most of that time.

And even the banker’s actions — which were quintessential cronyism with all of those esoteric Wall Street derivatives — are the opposite of free enterprise and conservatism. That’s socialism.

Understand that blaming Bush meant by association blaming conservatism, free enterprise, and all Republicans. It was precisely the lack of freedom in enterprise and the abandonment of conservative principles that were the problem. As long as this is not understood, by at least another 2-3% of the population, Republicans cannot ever win the White House.

It’s axiomatic that when people blame a president, it means they want to try going in the other direction across the board. In 08 and 12, that meant someone like Obama. Among these confused people, as recently as this weekend, was Donald Trump. Trump clearly said in 2009 he identified more as a Democrat on the economic crash — and he doubled down on the sentiment this weekend.

There’s more. He took the liberal union thug talking points book and aimed many of those same arguments right at Scott Walker, saying that “Wisconsin is in turmoil.” He went on to clarify, telling a boisterous crowd in Iowa that the state’s “roads, schools and hospitals, which he said were all a disaster.” Let me translate: Scott Walker screwed up Wisconsin by going after the unions.

So is Trump working for Richard Trumka or the SEIU now? I mean, this is right out of the union hall. It’s going after Walker from the left. So Trump was angry for some comments made by a Walker fundraiser? That’s no excuse for firing from the liberal flank, and frankly, a bit childish too. But my main concern is the liberalism thing, which has been exposed again.

So how will this play out? Will Trump’s legion of fans take note? Will talkers like Rush and Laura Ingraham mention this? They seem singularly focused on just Trumps good points. That’s a valid, but incomplete focus. It is not contradictory to support and enjoy his stabs at Washington — while also realizing in the sober moment that he is not the conservative answer.

Donald Trump is gifted. He is passionate. He has a finger on the pulse at the moment. It’s doubtful that conservatives need to nominate someone who has been pro Obama and pro Universal Care as recently as a few years ago — and to the left of George W. Bush this weekend.


CEdmundWrightC. Edmund Wright is contributor to StubbornThings, American Thinker, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network and author of WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again. • (4196 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Bi-Polarizing Trump

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Basically, Trump’s narcissism (which is almost as bad as Obama’s) leads him to be hypersensitive when people talk about him like he talks about them. This leads him to be a very negative influence in the primary. But he does at least attack the other side as well, in a way that Mitt Romney (who also had a rather negative primary campaign at times) never could bring himself to do.

    The important thing Trump provides is a lesson. It’s both a lesson in style (don’t back down from harsh criticism of the other side, a lesson Mike Huckabee recently showed he had learned) and in issues (a good Republican should care more about Kate Steinle and her fellow victims than about illegal aliens — unlike Jeb Bush and probably Marco Rubio).

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I am hoping that Trump will act as a catalyst in the, to-date, inert Republican mixture.

      • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

        KFZ, I share your hope. Trump is broaching subjects all the wimps think are third-rail issues. He is the cow catcher of the conservative express. For the moment, he is the lead goose in the flight, reducing resistance for the trailing geese. But, as we know, the lead goose eventually drops back and another takes the brunt of undisturbed air. So we’re tag teaming the socialist progressives! Enough metaphors?
        Cruz and Fiorina have less resistance than they otherwise might have without Trump.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Right now, I would consider Carly Fiorina the candidate with the most interesting potential. She and Cruz have been the most outspoken aside from Trump, as a woman she can go after Hillary without being tagged as unchivalrous and sexist, and she does have executive experience as well as at least some campaign experience. And she seems to be a pretty reliable conservative.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      All of these things — Trump is a narcissist, Trump is an egoist, Trump is only out for himself, Trump will say anything to get votes — must be understood in the context that they also apply to just about every other politician. The big Establishment elephant in the living room is that we’re supposed to assume that the motives of, say, a Jeb Bush are pure, that he is wise, that he is motivated by love of country, not self-interest, etc.

      Trump is effective because he has punctured this conceit. That he shares many of these same traits shouldn’t be news to anyone. I agree with Mr. Wright and yet I don’t think he’s grabbed anywhere near the full context of Trump.

      The choice is between various carnival barkers. Trump doesn’t own this ground. And it’s about time that we stripped down these phony politicians and started seeing them for who they are. I consider it a necessity that for every criticism of Trump, one should point two at the Establishment Republicans and four at the dastardly Left. To do otherwise is just to be rope-a-doped by this whole Kabuki political theatre.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That’s a very nice mathematics there at the end. Note that several blog posts on Kevin Williamson’s anti-Trump blast today dealt with how boring his hostility to Trump is, attacking him as in essence a shill for the GOP establishment.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I just read that.

          A rather lame article about Trump because it lacked that mathematical context. And without the context that the GOP Establishment has been every bit as flip-floppy (or Left) as Trump, then Williamson’s criticisms indeed fall under the heading of “aiding and abetting the RINOs.”

          He’s smart enough to know that. To continue to write at NRO must require kissing the Establishment’s ring from time to time. All of Trump’s sins when listed in isolation from the gargantuan sins of the GOP Establishment just make for ring-kissing.

          One quip from a commenter that I liked:

          Jeb demonstrated why he would be better suited as President of Mexico by trying to diss Trump en Espanol.

          Also, regarding this whole Trump thing, unless there is sufficient context then criticism of Trump comes of as a down-talking, condescending tone. “We know what is best for you. You rubes don’t get all excited. Just shut up and eat your bland Establishment vegetables.”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            And, as you may have noticed, my response was that the GOP had better pay attention, and understand, why Trump is so popular. If they refuse to learn, they will suffer greatly by it. They can’t make up enough votes from Hispanics (whom Hillary can buy more easily than they can) to make up for all the conservative voters they’re thumbing their noses at.

  2. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    I just finished watching Carly’s speech at the Reagan Library that she delivered last evening. She is correct in every detail concerning both foreign and domestic policy. She took strange and challenging questions with grace and gave reasonable answers. Once she has more name recognition, she’ll be unstoppable. If every voter had the opportunity to watch Carly’s speech, our nation could be saved.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Another way to look at Trump is that he is our Neutron Bomb. He blows up the RINOs and hopefully leaves the conservatives standing.

  4. David Ray says:

    If Trump pulls this 3rd party crap, I hope to hell that articles like this succeed in penetrating conservative circles (confusion & ignorance are costing us too much. )

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think most conservatives understand that their nation is going down the toilet and there’s little they can do about it. At this point all they’re looking for is a little respect…and someone who will at least give the semblance of a fight.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One hopes most understand that the greatest priority has to be preventing a Demagogue (such as the Fire Witch, Slick Hilly) ascending to the Despotate of Versailles-on-the-Potomac. It would also help if there was a Republican who would actually fight the corruption of the ruling class.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Timothy, given the size and scope of government (particularly the unelected bureaucracy), more and more we’re left to view the race for the Presidency as another episode of “The Apprentice.” I’m not totally familiar with that show, so cut me some slack. But the point is not whether or not some would-be apprentice could do the job. “The job” was just an excuse. The main event was the drama around whether the apprentice would succeed or fail, as well as the kind of biting comments (or rare praise) he might get.

          That’s about all that is left to us. In all this talk about Trump, Hillary, etc., almost no one is talking about what their agenda is, or might be. You’d think that would be important. Truly politics at this level has become like a reality show. What most care about is who is slapping around who. It’s the drama that matters, not what anybody really stands for. Oh, a few things such as illegal immigration enter the discussion, but no one really believes anyone will do anything about it but ignore it or make it worse. They just like to hear their own viewpoints mirrored, the villains slapped around a bit. If they could install a gong at the next presidential debate, that would be appropriate.

          No one, probably including Ted Cruz if he is elected, will try to roll back government, to slash agencies, to do something substantive about the invasion from the South. They will always find a reason not to…or stage a phony war. Lots of bills are passed in Congress that, on the surface, address various issues but are intentionally written in such a way that nothing substantial happens. Money shifts around a little bit, and the motion is equated with action.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      David Limbaugh has an interesting piece: Phony GOP Conservatism Has Wort Ou Its Welcome. In the piece I think he correctly analyzes the Trump situtation:

      Significantly, establishment Republicans are united with liberal Democrats in their contempt for Trump. The latter attribute his popularity to some innate anger of mean-spirited conservatives who are supposedly soaking up Trump’s straight talk like bloodsucking vampires. The former refuse to lift a finger against that liberal slander, and some even pile on, saying that Trump supporters are nativists or xenophobes, as opposed to sane patriots determined to protect America’s borders and sovereignty.

      The GOP, with a few rare exceptions, are phonies. Anyone who bashes them is a friend of conservatives. Even Putin has made some apt (if dishonest and self-serving) remarks about Western culture that leading conservatives should be making. It is a bizarro world we live in indeed when this is true.

      But it is true. We’ve been completely sold out by the Republican Establishment. That Trump is playing political tennis with these airheads is fun to watch. What else we gonna do? Will anyone really be satisfied even with a Scott Walker talking pseudo-conservatism about the debt, borders, Iran, etc., and then see him do absolutely nothing substantive about any of it should he be elected? That, by rights, is the default position, one well-earned by these phonies. Given how massive and out-of-control Big Government has become, and how deeply immoral the populace has become, does anyone suppose we have much left to do but sit back, eat popcorn, and watch this political Kabuki theatre of absurdity?

      They’re all liars. Our entire culture has become a lie. And there’s a new rule around here. It won’t be enforced. It’s strictly voluntary. But it says that for every one shot you take at Trump, you must take two at Establishment Republicans and four at the Left. I’m a little short on hitting the Left in this post. But I suggest we don’t get rope-a-doped by obsessing on Trump. So what that he’s supported Democrats in the past? The Establishment Republicans are doing that today. And they are the ones who have the power to write law and/or to block Obama.

  5. oldguy says:

    A little history lesson here: During the Revolutionary war the Patriots had to fight not only the British troops but often their next door neighbor as well. Sort of like we patriots are faced with as well today. These neighbors were called Loyalists and were driven out of the country after the war. We are hoping Trump will maybe do the same thing.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      They weren’t kicked out everywhere. In some places they stayed behind, and such places tended to be much more Federalist come the 1790s.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I sympathize with the loyalists. No conservative worth his salt would be for revolution — ousting a long-established government (whether a monarchy or otherwise) — without serious trepidation.

      A “long train of abuses and usurpations” may indeed justify such a change. And we can debate what rises above “light and transient causes.” But it was truly an insane notion to oust a king (of the most powerful nation on earth) and set up your own government. Loyalists cannot be faulted for staying with the status quo. And no wonder they say that about one-third of the population was sitting on the fence, waiting to see which side won. It was an almost impossible situation to be in.

      That’s why the Declaration of Independence. It was a great piece of revolutionary propaganda. The Declaration had nothing at all to do with sending a message to Great Britain. It was sending a message to fellow Americans, and to potential allies abroad, that this was not some rabble-rousing mob running off half-cocked. This was a reasoned, rational, and principled solution to a vexing and intolerable problem. If offered a stable future upon which to build instead of the higgledy-piggledy method of Parliamentary dictates from afar.

      Still, truth be told, I likely would have tended toward being either a loyalist or a fence-sitter. The penalties for rebellion in those days were severe. And with the differences that existed between the Colonies (north and south might as well have been on different planets), it would be hard to imagine a coalition that could ever withstand the barest stress.

      And it all should have collapsed except for one man: George Washington.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        And it all should have collapsed except for one man: George Washington.

        At the risk of sounding redundant, the greatest man who ever lived!!!

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Unless you count either Jesus Christ or Sinatra. Okay…I’ll let go of my Sinatra obsession and narrow it down to JC.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I consider JC a special case.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              You could make an argument that Washington was as well. In Freeman’s biography of Robert E. Lee (first volume, I believe — I have the whole set as well as Lee’s Lieutenants), he has a conversation Lee had with his fellow officers in which he noted that generally one can find either great military ability or great political ability, but not both. When they brought up Frederick the Great and Napoleon, he pointed out that they were also great tyrants. When they then mentioned Washington, he noted that the latter was a unique individual.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    There’s a nice article on the subject at Town Hall today, arguing that while Trump is a huckster, he’s doing well because the GOP Establishment not only refuses to listen to the grassroots voters, but prefers to attack those whose votes it needs rather than listen to their concerns. In other words, it’s not about Trump, but about the failures of all the other candidates. The link is:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/davewalcher/2015/07/29/dear-gope-take-two-n2031949

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There was never a doubt in my mind that Trump is a huckster. They’re all hucksters to some extent. The GOP Establishment (and their lackeys) are trying to paint Trump’s poll numbers as being due to people thinking he’s the next coming of Ronald Reagan. But I highly doubt that. They’re just so fed up with the GOP Establishment that if a trained seal starting taking up the issues long ignored by the GOP, they’d up the seal’s poll numbers.

      This is what astounds me about the recent article by Kevin Williamson…another down-talking lackey. Yes, we know who Trump is. But what else do we have? You guys should have been “outing” these Establishment phonies a long time ago. Then maybe there would be more to offer us than Trump.

      These GOP Establishment types are so comfortable in their arrogance, that (as the article noted) they have no problem insulting their own base…which jibes with Rush Limbaugh’s idea (a correct one, I believe) that the GOP Establishment is trying to establish a new base. I like this bit from the article:

      Last week this panic took the form of an article by GOPe SuperConsultant™ Rick Wilson in the pages of Politico, chastising the unruly Republican hoi polloi for daring to think on their own and comparing them to “clowns.”

      And…

      No, the message from the base that they’re missing is “>we hate and despise YOU, GOP political class.”

      And I tire of the endless chorus that any opposition to the GOP Establishment is a result of mere “anger,” as if we were all infused and confused by emotion. Well, there is indeed a time and a place to get a little pissed off. And that time is now and that place is here. But anger isn’t the issue. It’s the phony, Obama-enabling GOP Establishment that is the issue. As Lee Iacocca said, either lead, follow, or get out of the way. (He may not have originated that phrase. And I have no particular love for Iacocca. But it’s a good thought.)

      It’s time for the GOP Establishment (and their lackeys in the media) to get out of the way. And it’s not likely that they will give up power voluntarily. So many, such as myself, see Trump as the grease for the skids in sliding these guys into the gutter.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        It’s time for the GOP Establishment (and their lackeys in the media) to get out of the way. And it’s not likely that they will give up power voluntarily. So many, such as myself, see Trump as the grease for the skids in sliding these guys into the gutter.

        The Republican establishment is like many old time political parties. They have no ideology, rather they have material interests. First, last and always their primary interest is to use government to make or protect their money and positions. These scoundrels are in the pockets of moneyed interests of one sort or another and they do their bidding.

        While our Congressmen may only earn around $180,000 p.a., they actually live like aristocrats as they are given huge budgets for staff, travel and other expenses. They are entertained lavishly as government has become so all encompassing that business must kowtow at the feet of those who control it. Business does this willing as it is easier to corrupt a few government officials than to compete in the market. Particularly when business can bribe government officials to write laws as per business’ requests.

        Finally, our representatives know they may be defeated or wish to retire one day, so they arrange to have high paying positions waiting for them once they leave elected office. Therefore, they must keep businesses sweet by doing much of their bidding with the understanding that they will be rewarded for their fidelity to their business paymasters.

        The whole system is corrupt. As conservatives, we understand all government has a tinge of corruption. But today our government has grown so large with a power so far-reaching that corruption has multiplied beyond belief and this touches all Americans directly.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Hostility to the Beltway Bandits is outrage, not anger, but of course the BB and their lackeys are more interesting in “standing tall in Georgetown” than in facing an unpleasant truth.

        A good example of Williamson’s obsession with Trump comes at the end of his article on minimum wages today (and I pointed this out in commenting on it).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Here’s that article by Williamson. And that last part:

          If those jobs do in fact disappear, the politicians will try to redress this development with more economy-distorting subsidies and penalties, and when these fail you can be confident that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump will make a lot of noise about the wily Chinese and dirty Mexicans “stealin’ our jobs!”

          I smell the burning fumes of demagoguery coming from Williamson. To paraphrase Casablanca, “I’m shocked, shocked that a politician would confuse the issue.”

          But hasn’t Williamson just blatantly confused the issue? Aren’t Mexicans stealing our jobs no matter what Trump thinks about minimum wages (or immigration)?

          Jesus, I get so tired of this crap. Let’s talk some truth here:

          + Mexicans are indeed stealing our jobs, and breaking our laws, and killing our citizens, and running drugs, and all kinds of illegal things. Every day they are here they are committing a felony.

          + Minimum wage laws are a bad idea. That’s not even marginally controversial amongst conservatives or those with the least bit of economic sense.

          + Donald Trump is part showman, part businessman, part demagogue, part Democrat, part cheesed-off American, part opportunist, part patriot, part who-the-hell-knows-what.

          But what Trump isn’t is a part of the government or the conservative media. The GOP controls both houses of Congress and they do nothing useful with that power in reforming the problems that plague us. And the conservative media gives lots of airtime to the GOP Establishment — if only by ignoring the elephant in the living room — and then get their panties all in a bunch when someone from the outside pricks the balloon of the hypocrisy of the GOP Establishment and, by proxy, the negligence of the conservative media.

          I have no problem with people taking verbal shots at people on somewhat unrelated topics. I do it all the time. But Kevin would be better off doing an anal exam of, say, Scott Walker (ask Nik did) or Rick Perry or Jeb Bush. Or instead of just aimlessly engaging in the political drama of the day, do something substantive with your juicy chess-club brains and track the growth of the bureaucracy and laws. Everyone keeps nibbling around the edges while ignoring the Big Government elephant in the living room.

          We can elect Hillary or Jeb Bush, and it will make almost no difference, and not just because Jeb Bush is a RINO. It’s because the size and scope of government, along with the unelected bureaucracy, has become an untamable beast. A huge proportion of our population receives some sort of “free stuff” and the colleges, universities, media, single-parents, and pseudo-Christian churches keep cranking out juvenile and amoral (if not immoral) little beasties.

          So excuse the hell out of me if I take a moment to enjoy Donald Trump bitch-slapping a few of these sycophants, phonies, and leaches around a bit. Do people such as Kevin Williamson think putting a neat suit-and-tie and all this baloney makes it right or makes it go away?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          (and I pointed this out in commenting on it).

          Geez. What a tsunami of comments. I would say a “drama” of comments, much like you have a pride of lions or a gaggle of geese. It took me a while to find yours, Timothy.

          And seeing all that remind me of how nice it is to have our own web site where (hopefully) pertinence and truth, rather than just drama, is the driving force. At least that’s the way I see it. I’ve just never found it that satisfying to be in a pack of “me-tooers.”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            There’s another Trump-bash there today, by Jim Geraghty, and a lot of bloggers (including me) noted how tiresome this gets (particularly when they don’t hit Slick Hilly or Jeb Bush anything like so hard).

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Steyn has some observations on Trump: The Consultant-Industrial Complex

    Given that the “normal rules” of American politics have delivered America into the hands of a permanent ruling class content to preside over a hyper-regulated, corrupt, cronyist, indebted borderless ruin mitigated according to taste by a deranged hyper-sexualized identity-politics totalitarianism hunting down homophobic bakers and confederate-flag decals, I’m rather relaxed about that. Your mileage may vary. But the fact is that in a two-party system the Democratic Party is relatively effective at delivering to its voters the world they want to live in. The Republican Party not so much.

    He also notes that apparently Trump leads the GOP field among Hispanics.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Steyn posts this interesting interview with Bernie Sanders:

    Ezra Klein: You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing …
    Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

    Ezra Klein: Really?

    Bernie Sanders: Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. …

    Ezra Klein: But it would make …

    Bernie Sanders: Excuse me …

    Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?

    Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

    You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

    I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.

    Ezra Klein: Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?

    We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?

    Bernie Sanders: I do weigh it… But I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent-paying jobs, have education, have health care, have nutrition for their people. That is a moral responsibility, but you don’t do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly.

    Steyn then goes on to say:

    What is this? Some screwy Sanders internal polling that shows he can’t afford to let Trump get to his right on immigration? At Hot Air, Bruce McQuain characterizes it this way:

    Sanders echoes exactly what the right has been saying while at the same time trying to put the blame on … the right.

    But the problem is “the right” doesn’t say it – not if by “the right” you mean Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry or even Ted Cruz. And the paragraph I highlighted seems a better pitch than all that danged fence braggadocio. When even Bernie Sanders can talk like this, how come half the Republican field won’t even go there?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      What is Sanders, a “national socialist”?

      I don’t believe a word he is saying. Most socialists are “all in” on the internationalization of the world. The considerations of their own nation come second, all too often.

      In the Churchill bio I am reading, one of the ministers notes that factory production in companies with communist controlled unions increased only after Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The far Left gave Churchill plenty of trouble during the war.

      The British ambassador to the Soviet Union, Stafford Cripps, was a Leftist who was a minister in Attlee’s government after WWII. When the Soviets asked to buy jet engines from the U.K., Stalin said the request was a waste of time as no Brit could be such an idiot as to sell these engines to the Soviets. But, you guessed it, Cripps approved the sale. The Soviets reversed engineered the engines which were then used in the MIG-15. Thus Cripps contributed to the deaths of Brits and Americans in the Korean War.

      It may be broad-brushing things, but one’s working hypothesis should hold that all socialists today are internationalists and their loyalty to their country comes far behind that to internationalism. You might encounter a socialist who falls outside this rule, but it won’t be a common occurrence.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Similar patterns happened with Communists in other countries, of course. Tito’s partisans didn’t become active until after 6/22/41 (unlike Mihailovich’s chetniks), nor did Communist resistance groups form elsewhere in Europe. In the US, the CPUSA switched during that day from anti-war to pro-war. (Interestingly, in 1946 the Wisconsin Communists backed Joe McCarthy over “Young Bob” LaFollette because the latter, a pacifist, continued to oppose the war even after June 22, though not after December 7).

        Sanders has occasional moments of heterodoxy. He has a past history of opposing amnesty precisely for its effects on labor in America, and a remarkably good record on guns (at least for a New England Democrat) — the latter no doubt reflecting Vermont’s status as a “constitutional carry” state. But I believe he did vote for the “Gang of 8” aka “Gang of 7” monstrosity in 2013.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Another lame article from Kevin Williamson telling us that if you like Trump, you’re just a populist rube who doesn’t know better:

    That Trump for a hot minute is leading in the GOP-primary polls may tell us something useful about the Right, its constituents, and its internal politics, namely that the problem with populist conservatism is that it is populist but not conservative.

    Williamson becomes a bit of a parody, spending a flood of words to tell us that Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Has he ever stopped to consider that the political class is so corrupted by money, and has made so many false promises, that people understand, for instance, that Jeb Bush is Jeb Bush? We get it about Donald Trump. We just don’t care because at least he’s taking on a few issues the GOP Establishment will not.

    NRO is bought and paid for by Establishment money, and it shows. Too bad. I thought Williamson was better than this. He should adopt the StubbornThings formula: For every one harsh word about Trump, give two to Establishment Republicans and four to the Left/Democrats. If you don’t, it just make you out to be a pawn in this whole game…which he seems to be.

    Leave it to NRO to ignore the problems of the other GOP candidates and obsess on one who is a threat to the GOP Establishment. Kevin, we don’t need your condescending arguments about love for Trump being about our “Id.” This kind of lame psycho-babble won’t disguise the fact that the GOP Establishment is a corrupt mess. Trump is popular simply because he is not them. So have the guts to write reality instead of this propaganda crap.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I took a quick look at NRO a short while ago, but didn’t actually read any of the articles because it looked like they were on another “dump Trump” kick. That gets tiresome.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yes, it gets tiresome. Most of us here remember that they did the same thing to Newt. All I ask is that they hold the other candidates to the same standards. I don’t think anyone is asking the conservative press to gloss over Trump’s shortcomings.

        It’s disconcerting to see what seems to be money, not ideas, being at the core of all this. Okay, Trump’s dad amassed the initial fortune. Okay, Trump may not be as rich as he says he is. Okay, Trump might have changed his mind on a few issues. Okay, Trump employed some illegal aliens. Okay, Trump might not be particularly conservative. But not a word from these guys about where the candidates (including Trump) stand on the issues — and whether any of them (including Trump) can be believed.

        NRO. Bought and paid for by the GOP Establishment.

        BTW, anyone know what time the debate is tonight?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Ich just looked at Williamson’s article und Ich zink zat it ist more about his Id zan zat of zee Amerikan peeble’s. It ist kleer zat der kleine Kevin has zeerious emozional problems. He shoold kontakt me at wonce. Ich will make zom Zeit available for him. Togezer we kan zolve hiz deep zeeted problems. His Id truly ist odd. He alzo zeems to hav a problem mit verbal incontinence. Aber for zat, I vill hav to zend him to anozer spezialist.

      Truly the article was both unreadable and not worth reading. Either Kevin is being a whore for the establishment or he truly does have some emotional problems. It is one thing to be for or against a candidate, but Kevin’s last few pieces show he has gone of the rails. Psycho-babble indeed.

Leave a Reply

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