Author Topic: The Way forward for Republican party  (Read 71602 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Noonan
« Reply #351 on: July 19, 2024, 10:31:29 AM »


Republican National Convention Is a Trumpian Triumph
A movement that was a joke nine years ago is a party now. Its members are certain they will win.
Peggy Noonan
WSJ
July 19, 2024 12:06 am ET


I will make something clear before sharing some honest, perhaps startling thoughts. I did not support either of the major party presidential candidates in 2016 and wrote about it here. I could not endorse either in 2020, and explained why here. I fully expect my third consecutive write-in this November, for the same reasons as stated in my 2020 column, plus the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and the attempt to overturn the results of the election, which was not a failure of “decorum” and “norms” but something else and, I believe, more sinister.

But I strongly believe that in my profession and as far as you are able you must not let your views and convictions become cataracts over your eyes that cloud your vision. You have to see as clearly as you can and say what you see. And you must be alive to the spirit of things, and their meaning.

I state all this for clarity’s sake as the political year heats up. If I say the Republicans had a stupendous convention I am not saying I am Trumpist; if I urge Democrats to climb their way out of the Slough of Despond I am not declaring myself a Democrat. It has been said of this column that it does balls and strikes, and I take it as a compliment but I don’t think it’s true. Umpires don’t tell the pitcher to try a fastball or the batter to shift his stance. I do. My advice to both parties is shaped by my thoughts, which are those of a political conservative. I want both parties to be clean and constructive and to shine, and I want to be moved by their excellence.

And so, to the Republican National Convention: It was stupendous, a triumph in every way from production through pronounced meaning and ability to reach beyond the tent. It moved me. Madeline Brame, speaking of the stabbing death in New York of her son, and District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “soft on crime” response, moved me. The Gold Star families whose sons and daughters died at the Abbey Gate during the botched withdrawal from Kabul and were later abandoned by the White House moved me. What love—and what an indictment.

The convention was wild in the way things that are alive are wild. Harmeet Dhillon covered her head with a shawl to sing a Sikh prayer; Amber Rose, the beautiful young woman with face tattoos being cheered for speaking about what it is to support Donald Trump in her media world, and why she is willing to pay the price; Shabbos Kestenbaum, the Harvard grad suing Harvard for discrimination over its failures after Oct. 7; J.D. Vance’s mother throwing kisses to the crowd as it chanted her name, and her son saying maybe they’ll have her 10th anniversary clean and sober in the White House. The citizens were so much more eloquent than the professionals.

And of course Sean O’Brien, head of the Teamsters, railing against corporate greed to a Republican convention whose delegates warmly applauded.

And none of that was even the headline. The headline: This wasn’t a divided party, it was a party united. It wasn’t only Mr. Trump’s party, it was an explicitly Trumpian party.

We saw something epochal: the finalization and ratification of a change in the essential nature of one of the two major political parties of the world’s most powerful nation. It is now a populist, working-class, nationalist party. That is where its sympathies, identification and affiliation lie. There will be shifts, stops and accommodations in the future, no party ever has a clear line, history intervenes, but it is changed, and there will be no going back.

This was a party that at least for a week could turn the page on its obsessions. Election denialism was out, a post-DEI future in.

Observers have noted how joyous the delegates seemed, and they did. It is not only that they believe the assassination attempt, and Mr. Trump’s response to it, which has entered American political mythology, seemed to confer an air of the mystical and an affirmation of their loyalty. They were also happy because it’s settled now, and they won.

The first time this Republican Party gathered it was 2016 and the mood was darker, defensive around the edges. For many it was their first convention. The party was split. People were less sure of things than they said. Does a handful of real and legitimate grievances amount to a philosophy? I own a string of dry cleaners in Indianapolis, and I’m up against the Bushes and Skull and Bones. Maybe the establishment would strike back and smite them in November.

All that is over. A movement that was a joke nine years ago is a party now. Its members are certain they will win in November because they believe the vast majority of Americans feel just like them: a hard no on illegal immigration, unstopped street crime, foreign entanglements. They believe they speak for normal people. Meaning in spite of past apocalyptic talk of civil war, they believe the majority of America is still normal. And like them. There was a funny little affirmation in that.

In any case the long-heralded change has happened, and will have some real part in shaping American politics in the 21st century.

Why did Mr. Trump pick Mr. Vance? For intellectual heft? Sure—he’s policy-focused and fluent. As an attack dog? It’s not as if Mr. Trump needs one but sure, Mr. Vance, in his brief political life, has shown he isn’t shy to pull off the scab. But he is interesting and something new, and the choice strikes me as revealing about Mr. Trump. When he first ran, and in the first years of his presidency, he flailed about because he didn’t know the implications of his own policies. Some of those policies were new to him, a grab bag based on whatever the crowd cheered. In choosing Mr. Vance, Mr. Trump is saying: I know and have embraced a specific policy approach grounded in particular principles and assumptions, and I will institute it. Trumpism has journeyed from the chaotic to the intentional.

It should be added that it was creepy to see members of the Trump family dominating prime speaking slots all week. This was carelessly cultish, and in its carelessness insolent. Mr. Trump’s speech was surprisingly muted, scattered and low-energy. It lacked drama even though he was narrating what it is like to be shot.

To give you a sense of how powerful I think all this has been, I have a feeling it’s going to change the Democratic Party in the coming weeks.

They are professionals; they saw what Milwaukee was. They want to be bold too, they want to be winners, they want to unite and turn the page. Mr. Vance is 39 and about to ignite imaginations. Everything feels open.

Do the Democrats have a golden magic pony among them? Is that what it takes to change? To win? They’re going to find out


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Fantastic analysis of present day "conservatism"
« Reply #353 on: August 06, 2024, 07:15:57 AM »
https://spectator.org/nationalism-over-conservatism/

I agree with nearly all of it.  Agree Conservatism must be honed in.  I like the concept of National Conservatism but not sure about the word "National" as it has a ring of facism or naziism to me.

I also agree progressivism began with Teddy Roosevelt not Woodrow Wilson.

I also agree the Bushes were completely wrong in their approach and while had good intentions allowed the LEFT to take over all our institutions.   Could they have stopped this is another question I am not smart enough to explain.

And that Reagan was correct but those times were clearly different.
BTW, as an aside I think Reagan made 3 mistakes:
1) Iran Contra - of course he knew about it and while he meant well for the National interest it was a blunderous mistake that was more headlines for the LEFT then did any real damage to the US.
2)  The S&L crises - I do not recall him even recognizing it while it was hemorrhaging.  In this HW was right to come on and simply pay it off rather then it spiralling even more out of control.   I have no idea what Reagan was thinking here.
3)  The AIDS crises - he waited way to long to speak out about it or even mention it.
I don't know if for religious reasons he considered gays sinners or he just thought it was a CDC NIH concern, but he should clearly have spoken out sooner.  No doubt many gays to this day hold that against the Rs .




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
drudgereport headline article
« Reply #354 on: September 04, 2024, 08:06:47 AM »
GOP "leaders" fret about long term consequences of Trump.  [whoever they may be]
I question do they represent us?

https://www.mediaite.com/news/elected-gop-leaders-secretly-hope-for-trump-election-loss-report/

I don't agree we can allow Harris to win and Dems consolidate Marxist ideology though on second thought if we hold Congress and win back Senate ( big if as it stands now) we could stop Harris legislation (though administrative state and podium  power with adoring media would run amuck).

Yet article makes some points I agree with.

We have great challenges .   So who do I think would handle them better along with great risk - clearly Harris is incompetent and her Presidency will be Obama et al.

I don't want another 8 yrs of that.
Trump has a good record as Presidency so I certainly trust him with pro America policies far beyond the DEI/Marxist crowd.

Both could end in disaster but based on history I choose Trump.

From article :

“It won’t be easy to kick the habit,” he added. “But the Republican who forges a hybrid coalition — a modern-day conservative fusionism — between the pre-Trump party and his enthusiasts will be rewarded. No, it can’t be anti-Trump. But it must be post-Trump.”

I am not sure I agree with this based on this from article:

"Key individuals that have relayed their concerns in confidence include free-marketers concerned about Trump’s tariff idea, pro-life lawmakers disconcerted by the former president’s pro-choice remarks and defense hawks worried about his stance on NATO."

Obviously, the question is who are "key individuals" besides some Wall Streeters and clowns like we know Trump hater types.  Sounds like a bunch of elites to me. 
Are most Americans against tariffs that protect our workers.  Are most Americans against working to end Ukraine-Rus war ? I doubt it.

It sounds to some extent like a bunch of RINOs doing what they do best - appeasing MAGA - just like they do with Dems that has helped get us into this mess in the first place.

I would like to get past Trump but he is the candidate now like it or not.
We don't have a Ronald Reagan at this time.

BTW:

I read questions like could Ronald Reagan win in today's Republican party?  My response is not only, of course, but he would be ahead by 10 points and crushing the DEMS.