Walt Kelly's Pogo:
Posted on 01/23/2016 7:26:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Donald Trump is no conservative. Now, That's not a crime, it's just a reason to vote against him.
Many fine people are not conservatives. But the reason Trump's candidacy should worry conservatives runs much deeper than that: He poses a direct challenge to conservatism, because he embodies the empty promise of managerial leadership outside of politics.
Trump's diagnoses of our key problems -- first and foremost, that America's elites are weak and unwilling to put the interests of Americans first -- have gained him a hearing from many on the right. But when he gestures toward prescriptions, Trump reveals that even his diagnoses are not as sound as they might seem.
Conservatives incline to take the weakness of our elite institutions as an argument for recovering constitutional principles -- and so for limiting the power of those institutions, reversing their centralization of authority, and recovering a vision of American life in which the chief purpose of the federal government is protective and not managerial.
Trump, on the contrary, offers himself as the alternative to our weak and foolish leaders, the guarantee of American superiority, and the cure for all that ails our society; and when pressed about how he will succeed in these ways, his answer pretty much amounts to: "great management."
The appeal of Trump's diagnoses should be instructive to conservatives. But the shallow narcissism of his prescriptions is a warning. American conservatism is an inherently skeptical political outlook. It assumes that no one can be fully trusted with public power and that self-government in a free society demands that we reject the siren song of politics-as-management.
A shortage of such skepticism is how we ended up with the problems Trump so bluntly laments. Repeating that mistake is no way to solve these problems. To address them, we need to begin by rejecting what Trump stands for, as much as what he stands against.
-- Yuval Levin, a contributing editor of National Review, is the editor of National Affairs.
Trump Promises 'Great Management' -- No, We Need Limited GovernmentLike a dying business should forgo great management to less, limited business...got it.
Trump is right as always. We have really stupid people...
Perhaps the majority of voters don’t want limited government.
I hate to say this, but would Obama have won two elections if Americans really wanted limited government?
Not a Trump fan... but it seems to me that the reigning republicans in Congress have assisted in creating this expansive government that they are now complaining Trump won’t limit.
“How do you get limited government without great management?
You think it just happens?”
Precisely. These people do not realize how stupid they make themselves out to be with these asinine comments.
Well Yuvil aka Mark what have you got again’t good management? Good management by its very definition would meant cutting out the waste and fraud in govt which would lead to smaller govt. Trump has listed agencies that need to go including Education.
Hey we all know your girlfriend’s son is working on the Cruz campaign. But what’s a little cronyism among conservatives? LOL!
“Democrats. They need to be destroyed as a political force”
I don’t think it is possible to consign these vote buyers to the bin of history.
What we need to fight for is tax, fee and benefit caps:
1. $200 per finished room ($100 on half-baths)/$2 per finished/cooled/heated square foot on residential property per year
2. 10% on total state and local income taxation
3. 10% on total federal income taxation [FICA+Medicare+ standard, etc], except for up to ten million taxpayers [and only if the federal government has not run an annual deficit in the past three years after 2019], with the excess above 20% being useable solely for bonded federal debt payoff
4. 8% on excise, sales and use taxes of all types, with federal taxation priority
5. no new taxes or government imposts
6. recording fees and charges limited to $100/instrument per property
7. total impact fees limited to $5,000/housing unit and $2/square foot of commercial space
7. $8,000 per person in annual benefits less direct taxes paid by the recipient, excluding standard K-12 education
8. $300 billion federal/$500 per state resident in total annual benefits in excess of direct taxes paid by the recipients
9. total government retirement and disability benefits limited to $30,000/worker per retirement year and $1 million over a lifetime
Dollar amounts to be adjusted for inflation (up to 3% a year).
A very real possibility that I have reconciled myself to recently. Only a small minority wants government to shrink and let people rise and fall on their own merits. What all this hew and cry is about today is that the vast middle class wants Big Government to do things for them, instead of minorities and government hacks. People’s idea of cutting government is cut the other guys handouts, leave their handout alone. You see when government cuts the other guy’s handout, that is cutting waste and abuse. When government cuts your own handout, that is called throwing grandma in the street. There is an old saying, I do not know from whom, “We have met the enemy, and it is Us.”
And most people who claim to want "small government" only want it to be small in certain areas.
In the areas that have nothing to do with them. But touch the ones that do, then Nelly hold the door.
Isn’t that pretty much just what Etch A Sketch promised us?
He's saying that a core aspect of conservatism is to view a large, overbearing, and inefficient government as one whose scope must be reduced. Whatever the federal government is doing that is outside of its core functions should be removed, so that it can focus on doing better at those core responsibilities that it is supposed to do. Prior to Trump, nobody on FR would previously have disputed that baseline concept.
IHe then says that we don't hear any of this from Trump. Rather, all we here is about how he is going to make the government run better. But nothing about reducing the scope of government. And that isn't a conservative position. I. Fact. It's basically what the left always says - it's not that we need to shrunk the government - its that we need it to be more efficient.
So where exactly is the author wrong?
World War II did not completely erase European culture. Islam may yet. If nothing changes, it will.
This isn’t isolated to an island nation like the Philippines. It is everywhere, and especially in Washington, DC.
RE: So where exactly is the author wrong?
You gotta understand, to many FReepers, any article that questions Trump is considered cannon fodder.
The man must be protected at all cost.
RE: Like a dying business should forgo great management to less, limited business...got it.
First, define for us what the “business” of government is, then we’ll see if you get it.
Walt Kelly's Pogo:
I'll learn to huh? I actually pity you and your lack of independent thought.
I'm not sure he can provide that better management -- he may just bring chaos -- but just what is and isn't possible is a discussion people like Yuval should take more seriously.
To believe that because Ted Cruz wants less government (or says he does now) that we'll get less government if he's elected is very naive.
“If you think we can wait several decades to address the jihad that has already overtaken (and could destroy, forever) Europe, well, I don’t trust your judgment.”
????
Yuval Levin says please buy a subscription to the CINO National Review so I don’t have to flip burgers.
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.