Which has led to low inflation through price competition from abroad. Foreign deals did not screw our middle class, as Sanders and Trump claim. US workers just became too expensive, thanks to unions. American workers priced themselves out of the market. Rather than invest in new technologies and innovations, we spend the money on extended unemployment benefits.
As it stands more recently:
Your argument is pure BS. Are you going to tell us that it was public sector jobs were outsourced?
One of the chief tactics of the Enemy is to cloud and warp the meaning of certain words, until nobody can really tell what they truly mean any more.
Two people could be discussing "conservatism", yet in their own minds the word means completely different things to each of them.
But as for the article in question, I fail to see how you could plausibly make your initial comment.
Let's review the articles pronouncements of various issues:
1. Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim’s entering the country until the U.S. government could properly identify them, this following the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
How is "conserving" our nation and providing for the common defense not conservative?
Federal law provides that the President can exclude a group from immigrating on any basis whatsoever: a religious criteria, a cultural criteria, or the criteria of whoever is wearing a green shirt or whose last name is O'Malley.
There is no inherent right for any foreigner to enter this country, and there have been many periods in U.S. History where immigration has either been encouraged or discouraged, for various reasons.
So I don't see how exercising due caution with respect to allowing Muslim immigrants could be considered antithetical to conservatism, unless conservatism has been re-defined into some PC concept with which I'm totally unfamiliar.
2. Vastly expanding federal spending?
Again, in what universe is that "conservative"?
3. Turning education over to the federal government.
Another totally NON-conservative policy. Conservatives are supposed to honor the Constitution, including the 9th and 10th Amendments. Thus, wanting to keep educational policy in the hands of the State or the People, and only allowing the federal government those powers that it is explicitly granted, is eminently conservative.
And yet, what are many so-called "conservatives" like Jeb Bush and his ilk in favor of? Top down control, dictating local and state standards and forcing social engineering such as "Common Core" down or throats (not to mention corporate welfare at the same time).
4. International "Free Trade" Agreements.
From the article:
But the truth is that, starting with NAFTA, we have learned that we have been snookered. These aren’t free trade agreements defined as two or more countries deciding to treat each others products and services reciprocally; instead, it is managed corporate trade. We allow many countries to ship goods into the U.S. with little to no tax, while American goods are subjected to a withering variety of consumption and other taxes hidden in the host economy, currency manipulation, and are hobbled with rules and regulations that no domestic company must comply with. The end result it that millions of jobs and untold wealth have left the U.S. for someone else’s benefit.
You'd really prefer the GOP that we've been getting since Ronald Reagan left the national stage?
I don't get it.
It seems to me that you've totally lost track of what conservatism really means.
Lemme guess: you were looking for a conservative messiah to get the GOP nomination, but your preferred candidate didn't win.
So now, you're now bitterly lashing out, trying to convince yourself and everyone else that Donald Trump's conservatism is somehow inferior to the more sophisticated "Establishment" version which GOP voters been force fed by the GOPe for the last 25 years.
I'm sorry, but your assertion doesn't stand up under close scrutiny.
I don't think anybody would argue that Donald Trump is a devoutly orthodox ideological conservative, or a deeply religious man, but he certainly appears to be a pragmatic conservative, which already makes him distinctly more conservative than any GOP nominee we've seen since Ronald Reagan (with the possible exception of Bob Dole, perhaps?).
I just don't get the hysterical opposition to Donald Trump on the basis of purist ideals of conservatism, because when analyzed practically and realistically, Trump represents the potential to accomplish more for conservatism than the 2 Republican Presidents we've had since Reagan.
And let's also not forget that Ronald Reagan himself was absolutely despised by the GOP Establishment, and that attitude didn't begin to subside until after he beat Jimmy Carter.
One thing for sure is that the National Review, William Krystol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and their ideological ilk are certainly not qualified to be the final arbiters of what constitutes conservatism, especially in the minds of rank-and-file GOP voters. Nobody, especially them, is the gatekeeper of who we can choose to elect as President. It's high time that we disabuse these people of the misguided notion that they are somehow better judges of conservatism than we are.
And aside from all that, metaphorically speaking, the two-faced, entrenched, corrupt Uniparty in DC needs to have a 60 megaton nuke dropped right in its smug lap. Twice.
Nothing good will happen in Washington until the Establishment is shaken to its very core, and only We the People, through Donald Trump being elected President, have any chance of accomplishing that...
Vote Trump