Replies

Does he happen to mention that populism in the 19th century was in a very large part a reaction to the enormous power of the railroads, whose dominant wealth had been created by grants from the federal goveernment, in other words, statism? The railroads in turn bought officeholders and politicians. Does the Credit-Mobiiier scandal ring a bell. The railroad barons in turn united with giant grain companies that became so powerful based on crony capitalism that they were able to dictate the building of waterways by the feds. The small farmers got screwed on the grain prices and could not break into getting their produce transported at reasonable prices. Huge agribusinesses emerged playing on federal money and their cronyism with federal officeholders and and regulators. The ICC, for example, the first regulatory agency, was a reaction to out of control crony capitalism based on federal subsidies and crony capitalism and came about because of populism's rise

I don't believe the real picture is as clear as Levin asserts. I am reminded of Commodore Vanderbilt and his "ownership" of judges and public officials. My own father worked with an uncle in a law office representing James J. Hill in D.C.. James J. Hill, for example, forced the creation of Glacier Park through his cronyistic influence in order to draw traffic to his Great Northern Railroad. Although Marxists seized upon populism and converted its ideas to their socialistic agenda, the movement contained many small farmers and businessmen. Its targets were such trusts as Cargill and ADM, the company that later owned Hubert Humphrey.

Populism was not a response to free market capitalism. It was originally a response to statism and crony capitalism.

There is no way that you listened to what he said. Listen to Mark before you post

I listened to the Great One tonight like most nights. But I am afraid his endorsement of Cruz has locked him to a rhetorical corner. And tonight I took exception to his attempt to give Progressives and Trump supporters a common lineage.

It is axiomatic that the purpose of a constitution is to provide a legal and social framework that's larger than any one man, movement or generation. But a political movement that is driven, at least in part, by the charisma of its leader, does not imply non-constitutional government. Trump's conceptual proposals on border and homeland security can easily be implemented without constitutional violation. As we all know, Trump does not act or talk like traditional politician. Then why are his extemporaneous statements treated like white papers?

Like Mr. Levin, I have had the good fortune of working closely with good and wise men...great leaders. We are very fortunate to have the 2016 Republican finalists include both a strong conservative and a strong, charismatic business leader who loves traditional American values.

They need to find a way to bring both groups together. That would be the Presidential thing to do.