Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Even a Schmidt head gets it




Steve Schmidt -- John McCain's spectacularly poor campaign manager -- appeared on Chris Hayes's show on MSNBC to size up this year's presidential race.

I think he nailed it. Tell me what you think:
First off, the crisis in the Republican party is not caused by Donald Trump; Donald Trump is the result of the crisis in the Republican party. You have a party that has lost the popular vote in five out of the last six elections. You look at a party that is shrinking. Every single demographic that is growing the Republican party is losing market share. Its leadership has been complicit in the prosecution of an incompetently prosecuted war. 
It has been complicit in spending the country into $19 trillion in debt, abdicating its claims to being the party of fiscal responsibility. And all of the conservative institutionalists and the establishment conservatives, the professional conservatives in Washington have stood idly by during this season of collapse. 
There are no new ideas in the Republican party. There are not fresh policies. There's not the intellectual rigor and vigor that you saw out of conservatism in the 1980s. And on top of it all we live in a country where trust is collapsed in nearly every institution with the exception of the U.S. military. And you see this playing out additionally on the Democratic side with the rise of Bernie Sanders.
The parties are realigning. Most of the dimwits in Washington think it is demographics, the skin color game, which conveniently allows them to push the Chamber of Commerce anti-American amnesty program that makes U.S. citizenship worthless. But the battle is more basic: Capitalism versus socialism. You do not easily get capitalism from the political class. Trump versus Sanders would be a perfectly fair way of settling the matter.

By the way, neither the Weekly Standard nor the National Review make money. They are subsidized by sugar daddies. They don't have to please the public, for they answer only to the guy who writes the check. If that is conservatism, then to hell with it.

10 comments:

  1. 'Tis a fine line between a political analyst and a race track tout.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. The tout has to earn what little salary he makes by making more correct decisions than the average punter.

      Delete
  2. Well, some of the analysis is correct. The ruling class in Washington all suck. On the state level Republicans are doing quite well (so far). Don't like Trump. He is arrogant lout. He thinks in "deals", but deals aren't everything. However the Dems are bats--t crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is Socialism a fresh, new idea? That's the old idea the Democrats are selling in this election, the same one it's sold in previous elections. It just happens to come in two flavors this time: the soft Socialism of Hillary, and the Explicit Socialism of Bernie. So it seems to me BOTH parties lack new ideas.

    The difference is that what should be the Republican message to voters, i.e., personal responsibility and individual freedom, is a much harder sell than the usual Democrat message of "free stuff for everyone from cradle to grave". Indeed, as much as I personally prefer the Conservative message, even I yearn for some security and stability for my future, especially my financial security. Anyone who is not Donald Trump is going to feel the same way. But unfortunately, when our government acts, allegedly in our behalf, it too often seems to make things worse rather than better. Worse yet, its mistakes appear to be less the result of incompetence and stupidity than malice (I'm thinking here of Obamacare).

    What the Republicans face is the task of changing the culture in order to wean the country off the Liberals goal to make everyone dependent on government. How that can be done I don't know. Republican politicians continuing to talk and act like lite-Democrats is not the answer. I'm hoping the answer will come out of the current election campaign from at least one of the candidates. I'll be watching and listening for that message.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The problem is the republicans ran promising they would be different than the democrats. After winning the elections they governed EXACTLY like democrats. They sold out the voters.
    Now, they are saying, "Trust me, trust me." They've lost their credibility, so when they say "do not believe Trump," we do not believe them. Voting establishment will just be more of the same.
    This is a REVOLT!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Angelo Codevila foresaw all of this in his article on the ruling class in the American Spectator. I think it was August 2010. It's not capitalism versus socialism. It's the people versus the ruling class. Most people don't see it in terms of economic abstractions. They just woke up and found out that it matters little who is in charge, things just get worse for them, and those who are connected to the machinery of bureaucracy are protected.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Them as beat me to this, I agree with them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Keep in mind, neither of the parties stand for anything. They have not true ideology. They work for special interests. The ideologies they tout are cover.

    "All modern political parties and all modern party ideologies originated as a reaction on the part of special group interests fighting for a privileged status against liberalism.

    ...

    "To understand the true character of all these parties, one must keep in mind the fact that they were originally formed solely as a defense of special privileges against the teachings of liberalism. Their party doctrines are not, like those of liberalism, the political application of a comprehensive, carefully thought-out theory of society. The political ideology of liberalism was derived from a fundamental system of ideas that had first been developed as a scientific theory without any thought of its political significance. In contradistinction to this, the special rights and privileges sought by the antiliberal parties were, from the very outset, already realized in existing social institutions, and it was in justification of the latter that one undertook subsequently to elaborate an ideology, a task that was generally treated as a matter of little moment that could easily be disposed of with a few brief words."

    Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-10). Liberalism (p. 161). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Do you mean that National Review doesn't finance itself by selling wine and cruises?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Donald is turning the moribund Republican Party into the Earl Pitts Amurican Party. - Elric

    ReplyDelete