Posted on 11/27/2016 12:38:58 PM PST by EveningStar
Populism? No thanks.
I am not now, nor will I ever be, a populist. Evidently, that separates me from a growing number of commentators, including some conservatives, wistfully engaged in Washington's latest fad: over-interpreting Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election.
The normally sensible Mike Lee, Republican senator from Utah, took to our pages to plead the case of "principled populism" -- which is akin to calling for a sober Bacchanalia. Not surprisingly, Senator Lee's brief doesn't get very far before strangling in its own illogic, as odes to populism inevitably do. The "characteristic weakness" of populism, he tells us, is the lack of "a coherent philosophy," which inevitably makes its "proposals" (I'd have said "careenings") "inconsistent" and "unserious." Well, yes . . . that is because populism is inherently unprincipled, inconsistent, and unserious, such that arguing for "principled populism" is so much nonsense.
Lee, a very smart guy, is anything but nonsensical. He is clearly trying to exploit Trump's supposed populist moment for conservative ends. In his telling, "principled populism" becomes a menu of conservative proposals "focused on solving the problems that face working Americans in a fracturing society and global economy." I'm all for the menu, but that's not "principled populism"; it's conservatism -- or, as Lee unnecessarily modifies it, "authentic conservatism."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The only question was, which of the nimrods at NR happened to write a screed like this. It must suck to be them.
Mike Lee is anything but sensible...trust us here in Utah when we say this...he has hob knobbed with Harry Reid for so long that he acts just like him...
Yes he won this state and retained his seat, but this R voter did not vote for him after he went with Romney and Cruz and we went to court and fought to bring back the ‘voter fraud’ votes that group tried to take for Cruz, nope Trump took Utah in the General, and Mike Lee is an idiot and a Romney butt kisser!!!
After Donald J. Trump finishes doing all the things he has promised: build the wall, deport illegals and Syrian invaders, cancel Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, roll back twenty years of intrusive government regulations, prosecute Hillary and her crew, release the secret 28 pages from the 9/11 report, negotiate prescription drug purchases, repeal and replace Obamacare, simplify the Tax code, repatriate $2.5 trillion in off-shore profits, stop the IRS from abridging the free speech of Christian Churches, reform the libel laws to remove the “public figure” distinctions, defund Planned Parenthood until they stop doing abortions, cleaning up the mess that is the VA, cutting waste, fraud and abuse where ever it is found, canceling Common Core and returning control of education to the States, end the assault on the Second Amendment, audit the Federal Reserve System, investigate the harmful additives in Vaccines and the coverup of studies at the CDC, and destroy the culture of Political Correctness, then we can talk about all the “Conservative” issues that need to be addressed.
"We would rather keep losing to democrats with candidates like McCain and Romney, than win with a "populist"....
And I think, to us, ‘populism’ simply means, not pw3nd by someone or someones.
They were more concerned about think-tanks, selling books, hosting talk-radio gigs, and promoting policy than putting conservatism into action.
Republicans have controlled the House for 17 out of the last 28 years. What have they done with their majority? Have any departments or agencies been abolished?
They had their chance and they failed. Conservatives want action, not more words.
Perhaps quotations from early Presidents, Justices, Historians, and others may aid in discussions of the subject under discussion here:
"The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its components are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order...."
-Justice Joseph Story
Justice Story's words pay tribute to the United States Constitution and its Framers. Shortly before the 100th year of the Constitution, in his "History of the United States of America," written in 1886, historian George Bancroft said:
"The Constitution is to the American people a possession for the ages."
He went on to say:
"In America, a new people had risen up without king, or princes, or nobles....By calm meditation and friendly councils they had prepared a constitution which, in the union of freedom with strength and order, excelled every one known before; and which secured itself against violence and revolution by providing a peaceful method for every needed reform. In the happy morning of their existence as one of the powers of the world, they had chosen Justice as their guide."
And two hundred years after the adoption of this singularly-important document, praised by Justice Story in one century and Historian Bancroft in the next and said by Sir William Gladstone to be "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given moment by the brain and purpose of man," the Constitution of 1787 - with its Bill of Rights - remains, yet another century later, a bulwark for liberty, an ageless formula for the government of a free people.
In what sense can any document prepared by human hands be said to be ageless? What are the qualities or attributes which give it permanence?
America's Constitution had its roots in the nature, experience, and habits of humankind, in the experience of the American people themselves - their beliefs, customs, and traditions, and in the practical aspects of politics and government. It was based on the experience of the ages. Its provisions were designed in recognition of principles which do not change with time and circumstance, because they are inherent in human nature.
"The foundation of every government," said John Adams, "is some principle or passion in the minds of the people." The founding generation, aware of its unique place in the ongoing human struggle for liberty, were willing to risk everything for its attainment. Roger Sherman stated that as government is "instituted for those who live under it ... it ought, therefore, to be so constituted as not to be dangerous to liberty." And the American government was structured with that primary purpose in mind - the protection of the peoples liberty.
Of their historic role, in framing a government to secure liberty, the Framers believed that the degree of wisdom and foresight brought to the task at hand might well determine whether future generations would live in liberty or tyranny. As President Washington so aptly put it, "the sacred fire of liberty" might depend "on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people" That experiment, they hoped, would serve as a beacon of liberty throughout the world.
The Framers of America's Constitution were guided by the wisdom of previous generations and the lessons of history for guidance in structuring a government to secure for untold millions in the future the unalienable rights of individuals. As Jefferson wisely observed:
"History, by apprising the people of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."(Underlining added for emphasis)
The Constitution, it has been said, was "not formed upon abstraction," but upon practicality. Its philosophy and principles, among others, incorporated these practical aspects:
Recognition that love of liberty is inherent in the human spirit.
Recognition of Creator-endowed, unalienable, individual rights.
Recognition that meaningful liberty is possible only in the company of order and justice. In the words of Burke: "Liberty must be limited to be possessed."
Recognition that in order for a people to be free, they must be governed by fixed laws that apply alike to the governed and the government.
Recognition that the Creator has not preferred one person or group of persons as rulers over the others and that any government, in order to be just, must be from among the great body of the people and by their consent - that the people have a right to self-government.
Recognition of human weakness and the human tendency to abuse power; therefore, of the need to divide and to separate the power granted to government; to provide a system of checks and balances; and to make government accountable to people at frequent intervals.
Recognition that laws, to be valid, must have their basis and limit in natural law - that law which, as Cicero wrote, "is the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite."
Recognition of the need for structuring a government of laws, not of men, based on enduring principles and suitable not only to the age in which it is formed, but amendable to different circumstances and times, without sacrificing any of the three great concepts of Order, justice, or Liberty.
Recognition that the right to ownership of property is a right so compelling as to provide a primary reason for individuals to form a government for securing that right.
Recognition of the need for protecting the individual rights of each citizen, rich or poor, majority or minority, and of not allowing the coercive power of government to be used to do collectively that which the individual could not do without committing a crime.
Recognition of necessity for incentive and reward as impetus for achievement and growth.
Recognition of the need for a "Supreme Law of the land" a written constitution which, consistent with its idea of the sovereignty of the people, would provide its own prescribed amendment process, thereby circumventing any potential unconstitutional changes by any of the branches of government without the people's consent.
The Constitution of the United States of America structured a government for what the Founders called a "virtuous people - that is, a people who would be able, as Burke put it, to "put chains on their own appetites" and, without the coercive hand of government, to live peaceably without violating the rights of others. Such a society would need no standing armies to insure internal order, for the moral beliefs, customs, and love for liberty motivating the actions of the people and their representatives in government - the "unwritten" constitution - would be in keeping with their written constitution.
George Washington, in a speech to the State Governors, shared his own sense of the deep roots and foundations of the new nation:
"The foundation of our empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and superstition; but at an epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period.... the treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labors of philosophers, sages, and legislators, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collective wisdom may be happily applied in the establishment of our forms of government."
And Abraham Lincoln, in the mid-1800's, in celebrating the blessings of liberty, challenged Americans to transmit the "political edifice of liberty and equal rights" of their constitutional government to future generations:
"In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American people, find our account running ... We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth....We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them - They are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic...race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights, 'tis ours only, to transmit these...to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know...."
Because it rests on sound philosophical foundations and is rooted in enduring principles, the United States Constitution can, indeed, properly be described as "ageless," for it provides the formula for securing the blessings of liberty, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquillity, promoting the general welfare, and providing for the common defense of a free people who understand its philosophy and principles and who will, with dedication, see that its integrity and vigor are preserved.
Justice Joseph Story was quoted in the caption of this essay as attesting to the skill and fidelity of the architects of the Constitution, its solid foundations, the practical aspects of its features, and its wisdom and order. The closing words of his statement, however, were reserved for use here; for in his 1789 remarks, he recognized the "ageless" quality of the magnificent document, and at the same time, issued a grave warning for Americans of all centuries. He concluded his statement with these words:
"...and its defenses are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens."
Our ageless constitution can be shared with the world and passed on to generations far distant if its formula is not altered in violation of principle through the neglect of its keepers - THE PEOPLE.
Being bored, I painfully slogged through this overly wordy and meandering article authored by a National Review globalist/elitist looking for a point, indeed any point that might justify my time reading it.
Finally, I get to his last sentence which worries about “statism” employed by Democrats vs statism employed by Republicans. Well, that’s nice Andy but when the nation is sliding off the fn cliff your hair splitting pontifications seem as blissfully irrelevant as your employer’s ignorant opposition to Mr. Trump turned out to be.
In July I put all my GOP-e bookmarks in a separate folder and ignored them through the election. I’ve returned most of them to the main index now. But not national review. NR got a clean delete and good riddance.
“And I think, to us, ‘populism’ simply means, not pw3nd by someone or someones.”
There’s that, and then, what is populism but a popular response to bad governance?
The author probably thinks Bill Kristol and George Will are conservatives.
If it means letting in some air and taking the steering wheel out of the hands of the usual elites, sure.
If it means putting emotion above everything else, then populism has gone too far.
McCarthy does get in a good swipe at Michael Lind, who -- according to McCarthy -- is now recommending precisely the same policies that he mocked before the election, but I don't think McCarthy gets just how sick voters are of National Review writers and the rest of the political elite.
National Review has no relevance any longer.
They do not represent “conservatism”, because if you refuse to conserve the nation, there is nothing to conserve.
Another neverTrump verbal masterbation.
>>Lee, a very smart guy, is anything but nonsensical. He is clearly trying to exploit Trump’s supposed populist moment for conservative ends. In his telling, “principled populism” becomes a menu of conservative proposals “focused on solving the problems that face working Americans in a fracturing society and global economy.” I’m all for the menu, but that’s not “principled populism”; it’s conservatism — or, as Lee unnecessarily modifies it, “authentic conservatism.”
For the most part, it is the NeverTrumper Republicans who declared us to be “populists” while they continually claimed to be “conservatives” while selling American jobs to the lowest bidder in the Third World. That’s good for the bottom line, but forces working Americans into welfare so only a person who is totally out of touch with their own country could call that “conservatism”.
Conservatoves should embrace a president they have a great deal in common with.
I had very little in common with GOPe candidates Dole, Romney, McCain and the Bushes.
Not since reagan has someone stood by conservative values like Trump has.
Here’s the thing. The GOP since 1988 hasn’t scored one, enduring conservative goal.
The proponents of the Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain-Romney model can’t defend the GOP’s (and the nominally conservative in that group - principled or otherwise) record over that period of time.
Continuing along that path and expecting a conservative renaissance is absurd. It’s not going to happen.
Conservatives are in “take whatever we can get” mode. It’s the best play at this point in time.
Cuck.
Most people fail to understand what a populist is.
Trump is not a populist.
They insist, though, in calling “populist” someone who actually intends to serve the interests of the people who elected him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.