Why Senate conservatives are taking a populist turn

[Gunny]

I must not be in on the memo that explains why this is a good way to go.

Why Senate conservatives are taking a populist turn - Live Updates - POLITICO

[fj1200]

Conservatism is so passe.

[Black Diamond]

I must not be in on the memo that explains why this is a good way to go.

Why Senate conservatives are taking a populist turn - Live Updates - POLITICO

In which states?

[Black Diamond]

Kansas and Alabama make no sense.

[Gunny]

Kansas and Alabama make no sense.

In what way?

[revelarts]

Conservatism is so passe.

Can someone name some of the true conservative alternatives available? Are in the senate now?
Backing wall street without question is conservative?
Also what policies conservatives should not like of these scary populist?

[Black Diamond]

In what way?

GOP should be a lock in those states and shouldn't have to go populist. Unless the baby killers come out in droves for abortion again

[fj1200]

Can someone name some of the true conservative alternatives available? Are in the senate now?
Backing wall street without question is conservative?
Also what policies conservatives should not like of these scary populist?

So we should embrace expansionist policies just because there are no true conservative alternatives? I'll take the least worst please.
Who is backing wall street without question?
When did you become a populist?

[fj1200]

GOP should be a lock in those states and shouldn't have to go populist. Unless the baby killers come out in droves for abortion again

I'll give you AL on that but maybe not so much KS. I don't think that they're a historical lock and farmers in general seem to lean towards populism.

[revelarts]

So we should embrace expansionist policies just because there are no true conservative alternatives? I'll take the least worst please.
Who is backing wall street without question?
When did you become a populist?

I've never agreed to your definitions or concern about "populist".
But if I have to pick a candidate that's has more conservative policies, or polices that are for the American people vs big gov't/big biz or "free markets" that impoverish and practically enslave folks then yes, I'll lean that way nearly every time.
The American people overall are the focus ... if they're the populist your'e concerned about, then yes, i'm with them 1st policy wise.
As the constitution outlines... you know, "We the People" the population, the free people, the citizens.

[fj1200]

I've never agreed to your definitions or concern about "populist".
But if I have to pick a candidate that's has more conservative policies, or polices that are for the American people vs big gov't/big biz or "free markets" that impoverish and practically enslave folks then yes, I'll lean that way nearly every time.
The American people overall are the focus ... if they're the populist your'e concerned about, then yes, i'm with them 1st policy wise.
As the constitution outlines... you know, "We the People" the population, the free people, the citizens.

I'm sorry but have I said that you should never vote for a populist conservative? If I did then please point that out so I can correct or modify my position on the matter if necessary. You're not required to accept my absolutely correct definition of populism and my absolutely correct characterization of it as evil but you should accept the fact that populism is not conservatism. Please do not tell me that the small government side of the spectrum moving into micromanagement of the free market is anything but negative.

The problem with regulation is that it ultimately favors big business and harms small business. It favors those with the resources to adapt to regulations whether it's one story where big firms desire regulation so as to keep down competition, or another story where those with expertise demand that licensure be instated to keep down competition, or the government story that has them decide to pass down rules that everyone else needs to live by. Is there a functional difference between these that does not result in your "impoverish and enslavement" outcome? Please tell me how this trend is anything but alarming? In any of those cases I'm sure someone has said that it's "for the people."

I seem to recall you for years saying that there is no difference between the parties. That it's just a matter of speed away from the individual and away from the Constitution. How is populism any different?

[revelarts]

I'm sorry but have I said that you should never vote for a populist conservative?

I don't think you have.

what you have said is
"populism and my absolutely correct characterization of it as evil"

So one might assume you wouldn't want people to vote for evil.
but sure sometime we can understand that we're politically limited to evil choices.
It's My absolutely correct POV that Populist are far less evil than Big gov't, big biz globalist, Socialist/Marxist, Soft Sell military Imperialist or 'Free Market' Corporatocracy.

Please do not tell me that the small government side of the spectrum moving into micromanagement of the free market is anything but negative.

If the "free market" had morals or self regulating checks and weren't already beginning the micromanagement of everyone's lives and buying and selling all of people's personal information & even using gov't to force people to take their products or else,
well then the small govt side wouldn't see some govt roadblocks as necessary. Again, laws against human trafficking are not negative. And are a definite block to "free markets".
Small gov't can and should STOP harmful trade and trade practice.
"free markets" are not an ABSOLUTE good.
Last i checked only God fits that description.

The problem with regulation is that it ultimately favors big business and harms small business. It favors those with the resources to adapt to regulations whether it's one story where big firms desire regulation so as to keep down competition, or another story where those with expertise demand that licensure be instated to keep down competition, or the government story that has them decide to pass down rules that everyone else needs to live by.

Yes, especially when the Big Biz writes the rules. (see big Pharma, big Ag, Big Oil, Wall St. MIC, etc)
And enforcement is targeted at small rather than large biz.
You know like jail for poor st drugs addicts vs Joe Biden's son or the Bush daughters.

I seem to recall you for years saying that there is no difference between the parties. That it's just a matter of speed away from the individual and away from the Constitution.

yes, pretty much,
Ds travel at 100mph
Rs travel at 25mph with Wall St & Military Industrial complex trailers they claim we must have or we'll all die.

How is populism any different?

I can't remember exactly, but I think you've said before that populism does not have any fixed ideology.
That being the case, it seems to me that much of the current populist trending policy Talk & ACTIONS run a bit CLOSER to constitutional lines than has the past "conservative" "free market" "small govt", democrat, republican, ACTIONS.

Here's the thing, if the Reagans, Bushes, Gingriches, Romneys, McCains, etc had done more of what they SAID small gov't wise, constitution wise, there would be no populist trend for you and others to be distressed about.
But folks were more worried about politics, "broad appeal" etc rather than doing the right thing or what they said to the conservative base to get elected.

[fj1200]

I don't think you have.

what you have said is
"populism and my absolutely correct characterization of it as evil"

So one might assume you wouldn't want people to vote for evil.
but sure sometime we can understand that we're politically limited to evil choices.
It's My absolutely correct POV that Populist are far less evil than Big gov't, big biz globalist, Socialist/Marxist, Soft Sell military Imperialist or 'Free Market' Corporatocracy.

That's a fair point. But sometimes you ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler. But you're missing the point. Populism ends up at Socialism because it doesn't know where to end. Something AHZ demonstrated for us but didn't understand.

If the "free market" had morals or self regulating checks and weren't already beginning the micromanagement of everyone's lives and buying and selling all of people's personal information & even using gov't to force people to take their products or else,
well then the small govt side wouldn't see some govt roadblocks as necessary. Again, laws against human trafficking are not negative. And are a definite block to "free markets".
Small gov't can and should STOP harmful trade and trade practice.
"free markets" are not an ABSOLUTE good.
Last i checked only God fits that description.

The free market is its own check if it's allowed to be so. But you're getting into the weeds here. Nobody said that there is no rule of law under free markets. IMO government should regulate when the free market breaks down; company towns, human trafficking, pollution, etc. but not when someone gets a bugaboo about "junk fees."

Yes, especially when the Big Biz writes the rules. (see big Pharma, big Ag, Big Oil, Wall St. MIC, etc)
And enforcement is targeted at small rather than large biz.
You know like jail for poor st drugs addicts vs Joe Biden's son or the Bush daughters.

It looks like you agree with me there.

yes, pretty much,
Ds travel at 100mph
Rs travel at 25mph with Wall St & Military Industrial complex trailers they claim we must have or we'll all die.

And the solution is not for the Republicans to get out and start pushing by embracing populist views. The solution is for them to return to their ideological small-government roots which is not happening.

I can't remember exactly, but I think you've said before that populism does not have any fixed ideology.
That being the case, it seems to me that much of the current populist trending policy Talk & ACTIONS run a bit CLOSER to constitutional lines than has the past "conservative" "free market" "small govt", democrat, republican, ACTIONS.

Here's the thing, if the Reagans, Bushes, Gingriches, Romneys, McCains, etc had done more of what they SAID small gov't wise, constitution wise, there would be no populist trend for you and others to be distressed about.
But folks were more worried about politics, "broad appeal" etc rather than doing the right thing or what they said to the conservative base to get elected.

That is correct. I have said that and I stand by it. But there is nothing IMO of the current crop of populists running closer to constitutional lines than a traditionally conservative, small-government, position. A Constitutional populist is an oxymoron.

No question that Republicans haven't governed from a true conservative position but it seems you're making my point. They went for broad appeal which I didn't really decry as populist at the time but wasn't it? I'd argue that the most success they've had electorally speaking is sticking to conservatism. '94 CwA, 2010 response to ACA, etc. When they go for broad appeal they lose because why vote for the expansionist Republican when you can just vote for the Democrat because a Democrat will always outpromise a Republican.

[revelarts]

That's a fair point. But sometimes you ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler. But you're missing the point. Populism ends up at Socialism because it doesn't know where to end. Something AHZ demonstrated for us but didn't understand.



The free market is its own check if it's allowed to be so. But you're getting into the weeds here. Nobody said that there is no rule of law under free markets. IMO government should regulate when the free market breaks down; company towns, human trafficking, pollution, etc. but not when someone gets a bugaboo about "junk fees."



It looks like you agree with me there.



And the solution is not for the Republicans to get out and start pushing by embracing populist views. The solution is for them to return to their ideological small-government roots which is not happening.



That is correct. I have said that and I stand by it. But there is nothing IMO of the current crop of populists running closer to constitutional lines than a traditionally conservative, small-government, position. A Constitutional populist is an oxymoron.

No question that Republicans haven't governed from a true conservative position but it seems you're making my point. They went for broad appeal which I didn't really decry as populist at the time but wasn't it? I'd argue that the most success they've had electorally speaking is sticking to conservatism. '94 CwA, 2010 response to ACA, etc. When they go for broad appeal they lose because why vote for the expansionist Republican when you can just vote for the Democrat because a Democrat will always outpromise a Republican.

ok.

Question, was the American revolution conservative? socialist? libertarian? constitutionalist? or more populist in nature?
if you want to dodge the question as presented and say "other".
then what exactly?

[fj1200]

ok.

Question, was the American revolution conservative? socialist? libertarian? constitutionalist? or more populist in nature?
if you want to dodge the question as presented and say "other".
then what exactly?

It wasn't populist. They had specific complaints and they laid out a governing ideal. Life, liberty, property; a philosophy of liberalism.

The Revolutionary War wasn't even necessarily that popular.