2016 Presidential Horse Race

[IrishJayhawk]

*shrugs* I don't know why people care about Obama and not Cruz, other than they cared about Obama when they were running a campaign against him. I was just chiming in on the Constitutional requirement. At least, as I understand it.

And I agree with your interpretation.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I agree with this mostly. But I'm not suggesting the get behind Jeb or some other establishment darling. Just someone who does not make the collective skin of American voters crawl.

Who's available and competitive? Rubio's support for comprehensive immigration reform hurts him more with each passing day, Jeb's associated with a toxic American political dynasty, and Cruz (rightly) makes people's skin crawl...

The GOP is so helplessly divided that the only solution to the trap they find themselves in is a third party. That of course would also be a disaster as the competing ideologies within the GOP seem only to agree on their distaste for compromise.

The blue team is going through a similar process with Sanders v. Clinton.

I am a Democrat who happens to believe that a strong opposition party is critical for our democracy.

Yet you continue to insist that the GOP needs to become more like the Democrats. That's not a recipe for a strong opposition.

The harder they push for policies that are out of line with the bulk of the country, the more they will lose.

I think you over-estimate the % of Americans who share your policy preferences.

And while Trump has a large number of supporters, they don't equal half of his own party and won't carry him to the White House. Worse, his rhetoric is just as off putting to everyone else in the party that even if he wins the nomination a lot of republicans will stay home for the general election and that means an embarrassing loss for the GOP. I think it could also negatively affect congressional races for GOP candidates if folks stay home on Election Day. I don't see an upside for them here. Irrational anger and contempt gets them nothing.

If they think Hillary is as bad as they say, run someone who has a chance to win. Instead they choose a path of petty mudslinging and obstruction that hurts everyone. If these folks want to concede the election to make a point, then they should let the person who gets elected govern instead of the crap they put Obama through for the last 7 years. The only place sticking it to your own party leads is a place where angry people become angrier and nothing productive happens.

Check out this article by The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf about Rush Limbaugh's support for Trump. It's all one big backlash against the GOP Establishment.

 

[BGIF]

Lindsey Graham endorses Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics.com

 

[BGIF]

Cnn's Take

Cnn's Take

GOP debate winners and losers - CNNPolitics.com

WINNERS

Donald Trump

Donald Trump gave his best debate performance of the campaign.

Ted Cruz

Building on his recent surge in the polls, Cruz elevated himself as he went toe to toe with The Donald -- indicating a two-man race might be in the offing.

Chris Christie

Christie delivered the strongest debate performance of the establishment candidates as he touted his record as a governor and let his no-nonsense New Jersey spirit shine.

Nikki Haley

When even the candidate you criticized on national television talks you up as a "friend," you know you've got influence.


LOSERS

Ben Carson

Ben Carson looks like he's still trying to figure out his place at the table.

John Kasich

John Kasich was also present last night -- and that sums up his performance.

The New York Times

The Republican candidates took several swipes at a favorite conservative punching bag -- The New York Times -- and tried to turn recent negative reports to their advantage.


Meh

Marco Rubio

The senator from Florida started off strong with a slap-down of Hillary Clinton that also served to one-up his former mentor, Jeb Bush, and delivered a strong finish when he slammed Cruz as a flip-flopper. In fact, his attack was so cutting that it almost elevated him into the list of winners.

Jeb Bush

The former Florida governor was clear and concise in his delivery -- something that escaped Bush in the campaign's early debates -- but his adult-in-the-room persona often seemed starkly at odds with the direction of the primary conversation.

 

[RDU Irish]

No commentary on last night's debate? Watched a bit, thought Kasich looked a lot better - Trump saying something to the effect of "I like you tonight" probably rings like an endorsement that I see giving him a bump.

Trump is no dummy - you can see the politicians thinking they can policy wonk their way through a debate as if the nuances of their policy will convince anyone of anything. Trump says screw that, details don't matter - people respond to emotion not logic and Americans don't know any better than the folks on the stage what policy is better anyway.

Trump exhibited "anger" well without looking out of control. That is the connection he has with the populace. Everyone else is feigned anger only amplified by frustration of losing.

Cruz's New York attack was good for what comes next, Iowa, NH and So. Carolina. Trump's response was fantastic - feigned offense pulling the 9/11 card. The brash offensive prick acting like someone else crossed the line - just classic political drama.

 

[GoIrish41]

Who's available and competitive? Rubio's support for comprehensive immigration reform hurts him more with each passing day, Jeb's associated with a toxic American political dynasty, and Cruz (rightly) makes people's skin crawl...

That's kind of the point. Those who are available are not competitive because the party, in general, seems to be gravitating toward extreme views. The GOP seems to do it every cycle. Even reasonable candidates are pushed so far right that they become unpalatable in a general election. Kasich seems like a reasonable candidate but is drown out by louder and more extreme voices. The point you make about Rubio demonstrates my point. If not for his recognizing the reality of American demographics and prescribing policies designed to widen the tent, he'd be more competitive. He is being pushed to a place where he can't win the general in an attempt to win the primary. He only scores politically when he attacks his fellow republicans -- something that the most prominent republican of my lifetime said was a nonstarter.

The blue team is going through a similar process with Sanders v. Clinton.

Cmon Whiskey. Do you really believe this? There is not nearly the divide on the blue team as on the red team. The GOP is far more divided than the Dems and those divisions are deep, philosophical differences. Haley's republican response approved by the party establishment featured attacks on their own front runner. There is talk of a brokered convention. Don't mistake the typical election sharp talk of a competitive election on the blue team for the profound differences in the GOP. The establishment of the GOP is at odds with their base. The article you posted describes it pretty well.

Yet you continue to insist that the GOP needs to become more like the Democrats. That's not a recipe for a strong opposition.

Not more like Democrats ... In my 50 years, the base of the Republican Party has never been further right. There seems to be no room in the GOP for moderates. And moderates have generally been the most successful candidates in the GOP in my lifetime and before -- from the trust busting environmentalist Teddy Roosevelt, to the infrastructure expanding, military industrial complex wary Ike, to the proponent of universal health care in Nixon, to the amnesty of Reagan. All those guys would be run out of town on a rail in today's GOP. So not more like Democrats, more like traditional Republicans who did not put struck ideology over sensible and productive policy.

I think you over-estimate the % of Americans who share your policy preferences.

I don't think I do. I suppose we will find out in November.

Check out this article by The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf about Rush Limbaugh's support for Trump. It's all one big backlash against the GOP Establishment.

It is an interesting article that I believe speaks to my thesis about the party divide. Of course it also speaks to how much of a loudmouth curmudgeon Rush is and has always been. He is more interested in his own fame than he is about the purity of his beloved conservatism.

 

[kmoose]

That's kind of the point. Those who are available are not competitive because the party, in general, seems to be gravitating toward extreme views. The GOP seems to do it every cycle. Even reasonable candidates are pushed so far right that they become unpalatable in a general election....

....In my 50 years, the base of the Republican Party has never been further right. There seems to be no room in the GOP for moderates.

You act like these are "GOP" issues. Free college and universal healthcare are not extreme views? Just because they line up with your personal moral compass, that doesn't make them any more mainstream than plans for a fence along the Mexican border, or a ban on Muslims entering the country.

 

[RDU Irish]

Imagine how easy it would be to enter our country under Trump.

Border Guard: "Are you Muslim?"
Muslim guy: "No"
Border Guard: "Carry on"

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Imagine how easy it would be to enter our country under Trump.

Border Guard: "Are you Muslim?"
Muslim guy: "No"
Border Guard: "Carry on"

They'll have to prove it by eating a pulled pork sammich

Which I'm good with

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The point you make about Rubio demonstrates my point. If not for his recognizing the reality of American demographics and prescribing policies designed to widen the tent, he'd be more competitive.

(1) As the WaPo article I linked above argues, Rubio has several serious problems other than his association with immigration reform; and (2) I'll address it further in a later post, but our de facto open borders policy has been and continues to be a complete disaster.

Cmon Whiskey. Do you really believe this? There is not nearly the divide on the blue team as on the red team. The GOP is far more divided than the Dems and those divisions are deep, philosophical differences. Haley's republican response approved by the party establishment featured attacks on their own front runner. There is talk of a brokered convention. Don't mistake the typical election sharp talk of a competitive election on the blue team for the profound differences in the GOP. The establishment of the GOP is at odds with their base. The article you posted describes it pretty well.

I didn't say that the DNC is "just as divided" as the GOP currently. But the differences in philosophy between Sanders and Clinton are far more significant than they were between Obama and Clinton in 2008. There are real issues at stake regarding the future direction of your party, which is unusual. The main difference is that the GOP is openly disdainful of a large portion of its base, and is now reaping the consequences of that arrogance.

Not more like Democrats ... In my 50 years, the base of the Republican Party has never been further right.

And the DNC has never been more Progressive than it is today.

There seems to be no room in the GOP for moderates.

Where are the pro-life Democrats in Congress? What happened to the Blue Dogs after Pelosi and company rammed through the ACA along totally partisan lines (and how's that for "respecting a strong opposition"?)

And moderates have generally been the most successful candidates in the GOP in my lifetime and before -- from the trust busting environmentalist Teddy Roosevelt, to the infrastructure expanding, military industrial complex wary Ike, to the proponent of universal health care in Nixon, to the amnesty of Reagan.

Again, how is this not an assertion that the GOP should be more like the DNC? You really aren't in favor of a strong opposition, because you can't imagine anyone reasonably dissenting from the policy prescriptions of the Progressive caucus.

All those guys would be run out of town on a rail in today's GOP. So not more like Democrats, more like traditional Republicans who did not put struck ideology over sensible and productive policy.

A lot of the current backlash against the GOP Establishment is driven by this exact reason-- that the Republicans just aren't very different from the Democrats. The neo-liberal consensus of the Purple Party has been disasterous for lots of Americans.

I don't think I do. I suppose we will find out in November.

That wasn't a prediction about the odds of the DNC holding the White House. Odds are very good that they do, because the people who would like a change have no plausible alternative for whom to vote. But the election this November is not going to produce a mandate for either party. America is more politically polarized today than it has been since the Civil War, and it's only getting worse. So much of what once bound us together as a country, as a people, has been undermined by philosophical liberalism.

 

[connor_in]

Imagine how easy it would be to enter our country under Trump.

Border Guard: "Are you Muslim?"
Muslim guy: "No"
Border Guard: "Carry on"

Not a Trump fan, but under him we would have BORDER GUARDS? And THEY WOULD ACTUALLY INTERVIEW PROSPECTIVE IMMIGRANTS?

Hmmmmmmm

 

[zelezo vlk]

They'll have to prove it by eating a pulled pork sammich

Which I'm good with

Under this system, we would not be admitting any vegans either...which I do not opposed.

 

[zelezo vlk]

They'll have to prove it by eating a pulled pork sammich

Which I'm good with

Under this system, we would not be admitting any vegans either...which I do not oppose.

 

[woolybug25]

Under this system, we would not be admitting any vegans either...which I do not oppose.

You're really pushing buttons today, aren't ya pal?

 

[RDU Irish]

(1) As the WaPo article I linked above argues, Rubio has several serious problems other than his association with immigration reform; and (2) I'll address it further in a later post, but our de facto open borders policy has been and continues to be a complete disaster.



I didn't say that the DNC is "just as divided" as the GOP currently. But the differences in philosophy between Sanders and Clinton are far more significant than they were between Obama and Clinton in 2008. The main difference is that the GOP is openly disdainful of a large portion of its base, and is now reaping the consequences of that arrogance.



And the DNC has never been more Progressive than it is today.



Where are the pro-life Democrats in Congress? What happened to the Blue Dogs after Pelosi and company rammed through the ACA along totally partisan lines (and how's that for "respecting a strong opposition"?)



Again, how is this not an assertion that the GOP should be more like the DNC? You really aren't in favor of a strong opposition, because you can't imagine anyone reasonably dissenting from the policy prescriptions of the Progressive caucus.



A lot of the current backlash against the GOP Establishment is driven by this exact reason-- that the Republicans just aren't very different from the Democrats. The neo-liberal consensus of the Purple Party has been disasterous for lots of Americans.



That wasn't a prediction about the odds of the DNC holding the White House. Odds are very good that they do, because the people who would like a change have no plausible alternative for whom to vote. But the election this November is not going to produce a mandate for either party. America is more politically polarized today than it has been since the Civil War, and it's only getting worse. So much of what once bound us together as a country, as a people, has been undermined by philosophical liberalism.

Well said.

 

[GoIrish41]

(1) As the WaPo article I linked above argues, Rubio has several serious problems other than his association with immigration reform; and (2) I'll address it further in a later post, but our de facto open borders policy has been and continues to be a complete disaster.

At issue is whether they can win or not with their current front runners. Their all or nothing mentality is killing them in national elections. Every issue that is not 100 percent how they believe it should be is a nonstarter. If they want to win, they have to leave room for different approaches within their own party.

I didn't say that the DNC is "just as divided" as the GOP currently. But the differences in philosophy between Sanders and Clinton are far more significant than they were between Obama and Clinton in 2008. The main difference is that the GOP is openly disdainful of a large portion of its base, and is now reaping the consequences of that arrogance.

Sure Clinton and Sanders are further apart than Clinton and Obama were. But I have no doubt that either would throw all their support behind the other at the end of the process. And progressives will fall in line. There are serious questions if that will happen if either of the top two candidates in the GOP right now wins the election.

And the DNC has never been more Progressive than it is today.

Really? More progressive than FDR? Lyndon Johnson? Clinton is center left, as was her husband and Obama. Bernie and his supporters are pretty far left, but they will more than likely be voting for Hillary in November.

Where are the pro-life Democrats in Congress? What happened to the Blue Dogs after Pelosi and company rammed through the ACA along totally partisan lines (and how's that for "respecting a strong opposition"?)

Universal healthcare has been a staple of democratic politics for my whole adult life. When a party sees an opportunity to push the envelope toward such a goal, it would be malpractice not to seize the opportunity. If those on the fringes of the party are put off by that, so be it. That does not mean they completely dismiss detractors on every issue or do not respect their opinions. When the GOP had the chance to lower taxes on corporations, they did not back away from one of their core economic principles because the liberals disagreed.

Again, how is this not an assertion that the GOP should be more like the DNC? You really aren't in favor of a strong opposition, because you can't imagine anyone reasonably dissenting from the policy prescriptions of the Progressive caucus.

It is an assertion that a portion of the Republican Party has changed -- moved away from where the majority of Americans is today. And they have pulled the rest of the party with them kicking and screaming. This is the root of the great divide in the party. W won his elections by welcoming Hispanic voters into the fold instead of alienating them. Nobody expects the GOP to all of a sudden believe in single payer healthcare or environmental regulations on corporations to reduce carbon emissions, but trying to dismantle a program that insures 17 million new citizens and denying overwhelming evidence of climate science are positions that republicans of the past would not have taken. If that means I believe that those folks ought to be more like Dems, I guess you are right. But they are the people who made the dramatic shift right. Far be it from me to point out that they have moved away from most of the country by going too far. But they have.

A lot of the current backlash against the GOP Establishment is driven by this exact reason-- that the Republicans just aren't very different from the Democrats. The neo-liberal consensus of the Purple Party has been disasterous for lots of Americans.

I have read many posts from you on this topic. I'm not sure I am as convinced as you that this is the basic problem. The corruption of the political process is almost always at the behest of wealthy donors and both parties have certainly been corrupted. But I also believe there are plenty of fundamental differences in approach to solving problems. Those debates need to take place where the people are, not where politically powerful donors want them to be.

That wasn't a prediction about the odds of the DNC holding the White House. Odds are very good that they do, because the people who would like a change have no plausible alternative for whom to vote. But the election this November is not going to produce a mandate for either party. America is more politically polarized today than it has been since the Civil War, and it's only getting worse. So much of what once bound us together as a country, as a people, has been undermined by philosophical liberalism.

National elections are the ultimate metric on where the country is. I predict that a Trump or a Cruz candidate will result in a landslide victory for the DNC candidate no matter if it is Bernie or Hillary. And if enough republicans are as put off by Trump as they appear to be, it could result in low turnout on their side, which could affect Senate and House races as well. That is the great danger in running a candidate that half of the party does not get behind. And, the lack of a coherent political philosophy that the whole party can get behind may be politically disastrous for the GOP. A landslide election with Senate and possibly even House control by Dems? That would look a lot like a mandate.

 

[yankeehater]

That's kind of the point. Those who are available are not competitive because the party, in general, seems to be gravitating toward extreme views. The GOP seems to do it every cycle. Even reasonable candidates are pushed so far right that they become unpalatable in a general election. Kasich seems like a reasonable candidate but is drown out by louder and more extreme voices. The point you make about Rubio demonstrates my point. If not for his recognizing the reality of American demographics and prescribing policies designed to widen the tent, he'd be more competitive. He is being pushed to a place where he can't win the general in an attempt to win the primary. He only scores politically when he attacks his fellow republicans -- something that the most prominent republican of my lifetime said was a nonstarter.



Cmon Whiskey. Do you really believe this? There is not nearly the divide on the blue team as on the red team. The GOP is far more divided than the Dems and those divisions are deep, philosophical differences. Haley's republican response approved by the party establishment featured attacks on their own front runner. There is talk of a brokered convention. Don't mistake the typical election sharp talk of a competitive election on the blue team for the profound differences in the GOP. The establishment of the GOP is at odds with their base. The article you posted describes it pretty well.



Not more like Democrats ... In my 50 years, the base of the Republican Party has never been further right. There seems to be no room in the GOP for moderates. And moderates have generally been the most successful candidates in the GOP in my lifetime and before -- from the trust busting environmentalist Teddy Roosevelt, to the infrastructure expanding, military industrial complex wary Ike, to the proponent of universal health care in Nixon, to the amnesty of Reagan. All those guys would be run out of town on a rail in today's GOP. So not more like Democrats, more like traditional Republicans who did not put struck ideology over sensible and productive policy.


I don't think I do. I suppose we will find out in November.

It is an interesting article that I believe speaks to my thesis about the party divide. Of course it also speaks to how much of a loudmouth curmudgeon Rush is and has always been. He is more interested in his own fame than he is about the purity of his beloved conservatism.

I love how you consider the conservative constitutional views of a Cruz as extreme. This is coming from someone who supports a party whose self-avowed socialist is leading in half of his party's primary polls. These views would have him thrown out of the party not to long ago and now they are considered normal. I love the comment someone made that Sander's went to Russia on his honeymoon and never returned.

For those that say conservatism is taking us back to the dark ages I say I would rather go back to the dark ages of a country that everyone fled to and not to the views of those everyone fled.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Surprised by Slick Willy? Nah. I think this says as much about Hillary as it does her HINO (husband in name only).

EXCLUSIVE–Linda Tripp: ‘Bill Had Affairs with Thousands of Women’ - Breitbart

Tripp says she cringes at the sight of Clinton presenting herself as “a champion of women’s rights worldwide in a global fashion, and yet all of the women she has destroyed over the years to ensure her political viability continues is sickening to me.”

 

[NDVirginia19]

EXCLUSIVE–Linda Tripp: ‘Bill Had Affairs with Thousands of Women’ - Breitbart
[/B]

Breitbart is like the Slate/Salon of political news for the right

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Breitbart is like the Slate/Salon of political news for the right

Agreed, but doesn't change what Linda Tripp said.

 

[EMAN51]

Yes, I am sure every voter was on pins and needles waiting for Tripp to chime in.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes, I am sure every voter was on pins and needles waiting for Tripp to chime in.

I didn't imply that. You missed the point.

 

[Cackalacky]

Charleston has been in the news heavily this year. Democrats debate being held at the Gaillard. Beautiful place.

Fast food workers striked today and marched across the peninsula to Gaillard. Charleston Fast-Food Workers to Strike Sunday Before Massive Protest at Democratic Debate | WCBD News 2

Bernie has been all over the place here He has been to SC State with Cornell West also some of the other historically black universities in and around Columbia.

 

[woolybug25]

Don't act like you're not impressed...

 

[woolybug25]

nothing, eh....

 

[connor_in]

https://twitter.com/smod2016

Sweet Meteor O'Death
@smod2016

Candidate for President, Precambrian Conservative, #smod2016, Ready to Make an Impact, Tough on Putin & Iran, I'll probably destroy all Earthly life.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Don't act like you're not impressed...

Jesus Christ. That's ridiculous!

 

[RDU Irish]

Christie Toe - love to see Trump's comments on this one off the record.

 

[Cackalacky]

Twat an embarrassment

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I have read many posts from you on this topic. I'm not sure I am as convinced as you that this is the basic problem. The corruption of the political process is almost always at the behest of wealthy donors and both parties have certainly been corrupted. But I also believe there are plenty of fundamental differences in approach to solving problems. Those debates need to take place where the people are, not where politically powerful donors want them to be.

You seem to have interpreted my last post as a Republican critique of the DNC, which isn't what I was going for at all. My main point is this: if you think the most pressing political problems facing our country are Republican extremism/ obstructionism and a lack of "effective" (lol) campaign finance legislation, then you're every bit the blinkered partisan as those who listen to Rush Limbaugh. The ideology underlying both mainstream political parties is simply not very different. There's widespread consensus between them on a whole host of issues-- foreign policy, international trade, centralization of power, etc. Even on issues where the two parties apparently disagree, one is basically just pandering to its base in the primaries with no intention of upsetting the status quo.

But that status quo has been bad news for a large swath of middle America. And both mainstream parties are courting disaster if they continue failing to address the underlying issues.

On a related note, here's an article from The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty titled "How an obscure adviser to Pat Buchanan predicted the wild Trump campaign in 1996":

ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interests and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better… [Samuel Francis in Chronicles]

Imagine giving this advice to a Republican presidential candidate: What if you stopped calling yourself a conservative and instead just promised to make America great again?

What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs? What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better health care at a reasonable price? What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society — something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America — you simply promised to restore the Middle American core — the economic and cultural losers of globalization — to their rightful place in America? What if you said you would restore them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?

That's pretty much the advice that columnist Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in a 1996 essay, "From Household to Nation," in Chronicles magazine. Samuel Francis was a paleo-conservative intellectual who died in 2005. Earlier in his career he helped Senator East of North Carolina oppose the Martin Luther King holiday. He wrote a white paper recommending the Reagan White House use its law enforcement powers to break up and harass left-wing groups. He was an intellectual disciple of James Burnham's political realism, and Francis' political analysis always had a residue of Burnham's Marxist sociology about it. He argued that the political right needed to stop playing defense — the globalist left won the political and cultural war a long time ago — and should instead adopt the insurgent strategy of communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. Francis eventually turned into a something resembling an all-out white nationalist, penning his most racist material under a pen name. Buchanan didn't take Francis' advice in 1996, not entirely. But 20 years later, "From Household to Nation," reads like a political manifesto from which the Trump campaign springs.

To simplify Francis' theory: There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite. These Middle Americans see jobs disappearing to Asia and increased competition from immigrants. Most of them feel threatened by cultural liberalism, at least the type that sees Middle Americans as loathsome white bigots. But they are also threatened by conservatives who would take away their Medicare, hand their Social Security earnings to fund-managers in Connecticut, and cut off their unemployment too.

Middle American forces, emerging from the ruins of the old independent middle and working classes, found conservative, libertarian, and pro-business Republican ideology and rhetoric irrelevant, distasteful, and even threatening to their own socio-economic interests. The post World War II middle class was in reality an affluent proletariat, economically dependent on the federal government through labor codes, housing loans, educational programs, defense contracts, and health and unemployment benefits. All variations of conservative doctrine rejected these…

Yet, at the same time, the Ruling Class proved unable to uproot the social cultural, and national identities and loyalties of the Middle American proletariat, and Middle Americans found themselves increasingly alienated from the political left and its embrace of anti-national policies, and counter-cultural manners and morals. [Chronicles]

For decades, people have been warning that a set of policies that really has enriched Americans on the top, and likely has improved the overall quality of life (through cheap consumables) on the bottom, has hollowed out the middle.

Chinese competition really did hammer the Rust Belt and parts of the great Appalachian ghetto. It made the life prospects for men — in marriage and in their careers — much dimmer than those of their fathers. Libertarian economists, standing giddily behind Republican politicians, celebrate this as creative destruction even as the collateral damage claims millions of formerly-secure livelihoods, and — almost as crucially — overall trust and respect in the nation's governing class. Immigration really does change the calculus for native-born workers too. As David Frum points out last year:

[T]he Center for Immigration Studies released its latest jobs study. CIS, a research organization that tends to favor tight immigration policies, found that even now, almost seven years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans are working than in November 2007, the peak of the prior economic cycle. Balancing the 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans at work, there are two million more immigrants — legal and illegal — working in the United States today than in November 2007. All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants. Meanwhile, millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether. [The Atlantic]

The political left treats this as a made-up problem, a scapegoating by Applebee's-eating, megachurch rubes who think they are losing their "jerbs." Remember, Republicans and Democrats have still been getting elected all this time.

But the response of the predominantly-white class that Francis was writing about has mostly been one of personal despair. And thus we see them dying in middle age of drug overdose, alcoholism, or obesity at rates that now outpace those of even poorer blacks and Hispanics. Their rate of suicide is sky high too. Living in Washington D.C., however, with an endless two decade real-estate boom, and a free-lunch economy paid for by special interests, most of the people in the conservative movement hardly know that some Americans think America needs to be made great again.

In speeches, Trump mostly implies that the ruling class conducts trade deals or the business of government stupidly and weakly, not villainously or out of personal pecuniary motives. But the message of his campaign is that America's interests have been betrayed by fools.

The huge infrastructure of the conservative movement in Washington D.C. is aghast at Trump, and calls him an economic illiterate for threatening China with tariffs. They can't understand that this is not primarily an economic measure, but a nationalist one. It's a signal to voters that one man is here to fight for them, not to school-marmishly tell them that capitalism is helping them when in fact it manifestly helps others a lot more. Trump has attracted his coalition of supporters among those who are the most-weakly attached to the Republican Party as an institution.

Plenty of others have noticed the parallels between Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump. Some have seen that Trump is attracting the "radical middle" social base and taking on the Caesarist, almost Latin American-style populism that Francis recommended. Buchanan was recently asked about why Trump was having all the success that he did not enjoy, when he is running on so many of the issues Buchanan did 20 years ago. Buchanan said that it was because the returns are in on the policies he criticized 20 years ago. All of this is true.

The Trump phenomenon does seem to be sui generis. There are not squadrons of Trumpistas in the Republican Congress. And his celebrity persona, his extremely unusual and independent financial power, his felicity for not just recognizing but channeling the grievances of his supporters is unmatched. It's hard to imagine anyone else rebuilding his coalition of Middle American radicals and fringier, race-obsessed "alt-right" nationalists.

The Republican party is incredibly powerful as an institution. It will have the power to recover and return things to a sense of normality someday, even if Trump wins the nomination.

But the Trump phenomenon also seems global and inevitable. America's elite class belongs to a truly global class of elites. And everywhere in Europe that global class is being challenged by anti-immigrant, occasionally-protectionist parties who do not parrot free-market economic policies, but instead promise to use the levers of the state to protect native interests. In Russia, Putin's populist nationalism has taken over a major state apparatus, precisely to avenge itself on the paladins of the free-market.

What is so crucial to Trump's success, even within the Republican Party, is his almost total ditching of conservatism as a governing philosophy. He is doing the very thing Pat Buchanan could not, and would not do. And in this, he is following the advice of Sam Francis to a degree almost unthinkable. Here's the concluding flourish of Francis' 1996 essay:

I told [Buchanan] privately that he would be better off without all the hangers-on, direct-mail artists, fund-raising whiz kids, marketing and PR czars, and the rest of the crew that today constitutes the backbone of all that remains of the famous "Conservative Movement" and who never fail to show up on the campaign doorstep to guzzle someone else's liquor and pocket other people's money. "These people are defunct," I told him. "You don't need them, and you're better off without them. Go to New Hampshire and call yourself a patriot, a nationalist, an America Firster, but don't even use the word 'conservative.' It doesn't mean anything any more."

Pat listened, but I can't say he took my advice. By making his bed with the Republicans, then and today, he opens himself to charges that he's not a "true" party man or a "true" conservative, constrains his chances for victory by the need to massage trunk-waving Republicans whose highest goal is to win elections, and only dilutes and deflects the radicalism of the message he and his Middle American Revolution have to offer. The sooner we hear that message loudly and clearly, without distractions from Conservatism, Inc., the Stupid Party, and their managerial elite, the sooner Middle America will be able to speak with an authentic and united voice, and the sooner we can get on with conserving the nation from the powers that are destroying it. [Chronicles]

Trump embodies this in nearly every letter. He doesn't have people from the traditional Republican power structure advising him. He doesn't say he'll direct the existing members of the managerial class to make a little tweak here or there; he says he'll send his friend Carl Icahn and threaten China with a tariff wall that could repel a tsunami of cheap goods.

What so frightens the conservative movement about Trump's success is that he reveals just how thin the support for their ideas really is. His campaign is a rebuke to their institutions. It says the Republican Party doesn't need all these think tanks, all this supposed policy expertise. It says look at these people calling themselves libertarians and conservatives, the ones in tassel-loafers and bow ties. Have they made you more free? Have their endless policy papers and studies and books conserved anything for you? These people are worthless. They are defunct. You don't need them, and you're better off without them.

And the most frightening thing of all — as Francis' advice shows — is that the underlying trend has been around for at least 20 years, just waiting for the right man to come along and take advantage.

Getting back to my original point, if you think the DNC is immune to the sort of populist undermining outlined above, you're not paying attention. There are large segments of the Democratic coalition that aren't well-served by the party, but who reliably turn out and vote for the blue team because they have no other choice. Their counterparts in the GOP are currently in open rebellion; it could happen to the Democrats as well.

This is Exhibit A as to why philosophical liberalism is unsustainable. It systematically undermines faith, family, national affiliation... everything that ties a community together. Eventually it all falls apart.