The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post Reply
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4215
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by sophie » Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:27 am

Let's see what happens to the discourse on the forum when Trump as a person is taken out of the equation.

It is abundantly clear from both the 2016 and 2020 election results that Trump-style populism, with a healthy dose of free-market principles and above all a strong regard for personal freedom, is highly favored by broad swaths of the American electorate. It cuts across party lines, and racial and ethnic backgrounds. It is also national-centric ("America First", "Made in America" etc) and regards globalism and immigration as "shade of gray" issues with real potential downsides, especially for America's lower and lower/middle classes. It does not kowtow to corporations, but rather focuses on The People.

The Republican Party was forced to follow this path since 2016, and it's the best thing that could have happened to them. They were otherwise doomed to be strangled from within by the religious right, Tea Party activists, and congress members in the pockets of various corporations. Now, the party has real legs and could come to dominate in future elections, as the Democrats are slowly strangled by their own equivalent of these groups.

Discussion, etc? I'm not a moderator but I hereby request of Xan, I2start, and any other mods out there that they delete any posts that make specific reference to Trump *as a person*. An avowed hatred of Republican populism that clearly stems from hatred of Trump will be treated in the same way. Similarly, expressed contempt for opposing viewpoints without a clear rationale will not be considered acceptable.

And please all, keep it civil. No personal attacks. Moderators please delete any of those posts as well?
Last edited by sophie on Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2655
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by Cortopassi » Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:52 am

I'm not sure I agree. I also see a party that (I may be brainwashed here, I am happy to be told that!)

--denies climate change, and puts little effort into renewables
--is generally anti-choice
--generally fights against making things more equal for the LGBT community
--has a pretty poor record on improving the immigration situation/ DACA
--is against socialized healthcare but has yet to put anything reasonable up in place of it
--has no problem with out of control spending and debt when it's spent by their side

So I am not seeing a party that aligns with things I want to see happen.

Maybe there's a new branch that will split off and be more moderate that I can support.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:57 am

I agree that the "Tea Party" had grown stale. They were not popular, and they especially did not resonate with the younger generation. The GOP needed some shake up to stay relevant. Then come 2016, you have the return of Republican's greatest rivals over the previous 25 years... the Clinton's. They definitely needed a shake up. There was no way the Tea Party was going to beat a Clinton. From a policy perspective, the Republican Party today looks hardly anything like the Republican Party of just a few years ago did. A little off the top of my head compare and contrast of old school GOP positions vs new school Trump positions.

Trump-era's focus on isolationism vs old-school focus on globalism. Isolationism has its tradeoffs. Objectively, isolationism defends existing blue collar jobs (like manufacturing and farming), but the tradeoff is that it prevents innovation. It's a battle of trying to prevent change an in turn innovation so more people can hold their current careers longer vs embracing change and innovation and forcing people to have to cross-train into a new field. This argument is ancient. The outcome is also guaranteed. Innovation always wins out. The same argument went on in the industrial revolution for instance, just like it is going on now in the tech revolution, only then it was the manufacturing jobs that were the new innovators and the agricultural jobs alone that were the old guard. I personally think that favoring innovation is better for the country as a whole, but I can respect that some people in these outdated industries would be worried and upset. I mean, I would be irked if my career was threatened, even if it was for the "greater good". Also, I think free trade benefits all. From an accounting perspective a trade "deficit" is meaningless, because both sides of the balance sheet always have to balance out. A deficit in trade necessarily has to be countered by an equal surplus in investment. Mathematically it is impossible to dispute this. So lowering the "trade deficit" means an equal reduction in foreign investment. Those dollars we are paying to other countries are "U.S." dollars, and in turn need to be spent eventually in some way, shape, or form in the U.S. So if it's not going to buying our goods, it comes in the form of investment... buying U.S. dollars, treasuries, stocks, etc. This is part of why the U.S. stock market historically out performs foreign stock markets. This is also a symptom of us being reserve currency. We have this forced investment "surplus", therefore we need a "trade deficit". This is the one way being reserve currency is a blessing (though in some ways it can be a curse...).

Immigration. Once again, similar tradeoffs to the above. Immigrants are a threat to blue collar jobs. So stemming the flow of immigration helps protect jobs. But what is the cost? The tradeoff? Well, there is no statistic that correlates more strongly to GDP growth than population growth. Our current young generation is not growing the population at a fast clip. This is why we are in a low growth era, and will continue to be in a low growth era until the population starts to grow again. So what is the best way to increase the population if we are not increasing organically? Immigration. These people do come and assume jobs, but they also become consumers themselves, which in turn creates more jobs, and more GDP activity. So it's not such a binary black and white "good for the people" vs "good for corporation" thing. There are tradeoffs both ways. One has to look at both the cost and the benefit of both. You cannot throw out one side of the tradeoff and only weigh the benefits of one vs the costs of the other. You have to look at both the costs and benefits of both to gain an accurate comparison. GOP used to be pro-immigration for the very reason I stated, which is the economic GDP growth argument. It's a very sharp change to suddenly have the party take a full on swing to anti-immigration. I think it helped them gain a lot of blue-collar votes in 2016, but I'm not sure it really helps the overall country.

I have a lot more to say on the topic, but I will leave it there and let the conversation flow for now.
Last edited by pmward on Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tomfoolery
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:47 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by tomfoolery » Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:58 am

Half the country thinks the other half of the country are complete morons.

The problem is these are mutually exclusive scenarios and both sides can’t be right. And those in the moron side doesn’t know they’re the morons.

Amusingly, I think both sides will agree with the above without taking offense because the reader always believes they’re in the smart side, if for no reason more than cognitive dissonance.

There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground anymore. Everything seems binary, unlike gender, for one side at least.

Either you think everyone should be forced to wear masks at threat of gunpoint, or you think people should have freedom to decide whether they’ll wear masks or not. Oddly, the side that thinks everything should be forced to wear masks at gunpoint doesn’t want to admit it’s at gunpoint, even though it’s quite obvious to any impartial observer that it’s at gunpoint. And the side that wants to have the government force you to wear masks at gunpoint doesn’t think it’s a political issue in spite of being the ones to leverage the government, which by definition is political, to enforce the order.

Either you think the government should redistribute assets to provide healthcare to everyone as a basic right or you don’t, perhaps because you’ve been lied to by government before about healthcare. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” turned out not to be true, in spite of warnings from the right it wouldn’t be true before they signed the laws that had to be passed before we could find out what was in it. Turns out when government gets involved with a sector, like healthcare, and changes the rules and payment to the free market participants for the negative, some of those participants leave, including some peoples’ doctors.

Either you think people have a right to protect themselves and arm themselves against threats or you think violent crime doesn’t exist, or it will happen to someone else, or maybe it exists but not to you and your family.

Either you think you have the right to raise your children as you see fit or you think the government should control how children are raised.

There doesn’t seem to me a middle ground anymore and it’s polarized the country between those who want to be left alone and those who want to be a collective controlled by a central authority.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:03 am

tomfoolery wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:58 am
Half the country thinks the other half of the country are complete morons.

The problem is these are mutually exclusive scenarios and both sides can’t be right. And those in the moron side doesn’t know they’re the morons.

Amusingly, I think both sides will agree with the above without taking offense because the reader always believes they’re in the smart side, if for no reason more than cognitive dissonance.

There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground anymore. Everything seems binary, unlike gender, for one side at least.

Either you think everyone should be forced to wear masks at threat of gunpoint, or you think people should have freedom to decide whether they’ll wear masks or not. Oddly, the side that thinks everything should be forced to wear masks at gunpoint doesn’t want to admit it’s at gunpoint, even though it’s quite obvious to any impartial observer that it’s at gunpoint. And the side that wants to have the government force you to wear masks at gunpoint doesn’t think it’s a political issue in spite of being the ones to leverage the government, which by definition is political, to enforce the order.

Either you think the government should redistribute assets to provide healthcare to everyone as a basic right or you don’t, perhaps because you’ve been lied to by government before about healthcare. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” turned out not to be true, in spite of warnings from the right it wouldn’t be true before they signed the laws that had to be passed before we could find out what was in it. Turns out when government gets involved with a sector, like healthcare, and changes the rules and payment to the free market participants for the negative, some of those participants leave, including some peoples’ doctors.

Either you think people have a right to protect themselves and arm themselves against threats or you think violent crime doesn’t exist, or it will happen to someone else, or maybe it exists but not to you and your family.

Either you think you have the right to raise your children as you see fit or you think the government should control how children are raised.

There doesn’t seem to me a middle ground anymore and it’s polarized the country between those who want to be left alone and those who want to be a collective controlled by a central authority.
For the first time, I actually agree with Tom. I consider myself more of a "moderate" than anything. I don't really love either party right now. I mean, I voted for Biden as the lesser of two evils, but if I'm being objective I think it's silly to threaten an increase in taxes (even only for those making 400k and up) during a time of economic crisis. I also am pro second amendment. I am totally against changing the rules of the Supreme Court to have more liberal presence (though I also thought Trumps rush to fill the seat after voting had already begun, while legal, was distasteful). So yeah, I wind up arguing with "right populists" here on this board... and then I also wind up arguing with "left populists" other places. The binary choice tribalism thing is definitely a problem.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4215
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by sophie » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:14 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:52 am
I'm not sure I agree. I also see a party that (I may be brainwashed here, I am happy to be told that!)

--denies climate change, and puts little effort into renewables
--is generally anti-choice
--generally fights against making things more equal for the LGBT community
--has a pretty poor record on improving the immigration situation/ DACA
--is against socialized healthcare but has yet to put anything reasonable up in place of it
--has no problem with out of control spending and debt when it's spent by their side

So I am not seeing a party that aligns with things I want to see happen.

Maybe there's a new branch that will split off and be more moderate that I can support.
I hope you understand that your viewpoints (appreciated btw) do not invalidate the new Republican populism for everyone else. also a few critiques don't invalidate the entire philosophy. Have we really gotten to the point where it's now required to throw out the baby along with the bathwater? And where we've forgotten that it's actually possible to have a civil discussion that involves debating opposing points of view?

For these reasons I don't regard this as a civil post in keeping with my request above. Could you please edit it to make your viewpoints clear but refrain from implying that it is beneath you to engage in discourse with people who disagree with said viewpoints? Then we can happily talk about them. If you can't do that, then I respectfully ask that you delete your post and refrain from further posts in this thread.
User avatar
tomfoolery
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:47 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by tomfoolery » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:22 am

pmward wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:57 am
Immigration. Once again, similar tradeoffs to the above. Immigrants are a threat to blue collar jobs. So stemming the flow of immigration helps protect jobs. But what is the cost? The tradeoff? Well, there is no statistic that correlates more strongly to GDP growth than population growth. Our current young generation is not growing the population at a fast clip. This is why we are in a low growth era, and will continue to be in a low growth era until the population starts to grow again. So what is the best way to increase the population if we are not increasing organically? Immigration. These people do come and assume jobs, but they also become consumers themselves, which in turn creates more jobs, and more GDP activity. So it's not such a binary black and white "good for the people" vs "good for corporation" thing. There are tradeoffs both ways. One has to look at both the cost and the benefit of both. You cannot throw out one side of the tradeoff and only weigh the benefits of one vs the costs of the other. You have to look at both the costs and benefits of both to gain an accurate comparison. GOP used to be pro-immigration for the very reason I stated, which is the economic GDP growth argument. It's a very sharp change to suddenly have the party take a full on swing to anti-immigration. I think it helped them gain a lot of blue-collar votes in 2016, but I'm not sure it really helps the overall country.
It seems that you’re making a normative statement that increasing population is good and necessary.

Personally, I’d be thrilled if population stopped growing or even shrank. I’m not sure why it benefits me to have more people competing for the limited supply of single family homes I haven’t been able to afford without going massively in debt,

I am not sure why it benefits me to have longer wait times at the doctors office since a new influx of people moved in, none of them doctors licensed to practice in the US, so the number of medical offices are the same, but the number of patients has increased so my wait times are longer.

I am not sure why it benefits me to have more cars on the road and have traffic get worse.

I see no benefit in a bunch of people coming over from other cultures and demanding I conform to their culture, as mostly commonly seen with the religion of peace.

The only “benefit” I see is more people to pay into the Ponzi scheme of social security for me to be able to collect when I hit that age. But I think social security is an awful system that never should have started, never should have expanded into what it is today, and thus can’t argue that we need immigration in order to sustain a horrible Ponzi scheme.

Okay, maybe my stock portion of my PP is going up more because if GDP growth from more immigration, great, but housing prices have been going up much more than the SP500. So doesn’t do me any good when the largest expense in my life is housing at over 50% of my budget. And the more people, the more expensive housing gets.

I have nothing against immigrants, and I am from an immigrant family 100 years ago. I just don’t see how immigration benefits me personally at this immediate point in time. Especially given the massive welfare benefits we hand out in the form of Medicaid and public education for the most part.
Last edited by tomfoolery on Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by glennds » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:26 am

sophie wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:14 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:52 am
I'm not sure I agree. I also see a party that (I may be brainwashed here, I am happy to be told that!)

--denies climate change, and puts little effort into renewables
--is generally anti-choice
--generally fights against making things more equal for the LGBT community
--has a pretty poor record on improving the immigration situation/ DACA
--is against socialized healthcare but has yet to put anything reasonable up in place of it
--has no problem with out of control spending and debt when it's spent by their side

So I am not seeing a party that aligns with things I want to see happen.

Maybe there's a new branch that will split off and be more moderate that I can support.
I hope you understand that your viewpoints (appreciated btw) do not invalidate the new Republican populism for everyone else. also a few critiques don't invalidate the entire philosophy. Have we really gotten to the point where it's now required to throw out the baby along with the bathwater? And where we've forgotten that it's actually possible to have a civil discussion that involves debating opposing points of view?

For these reasons I don't regard this as a civil post in keeping with my request above. Could you please edit it to make your viewpoints clear but refrain from implying that it is beneath you to engage in discourse with people who disagree with said viewpoints? Then we can happily talk about them. If you can't do that, then I respectfully ask that you delete your post and refrain from further posts in this thread.
Gosh, when I read Cortopassi's post all I see is a respectful disagreement with your outline of merits of The New Republican Populism. And as you requested, he did not anchor his comments to Trump personally. I am not seeing where he suggests throwing the whole party way or that any discourse of any kind is beneath him. Good grief!

BTW, my beliefs happen to line up pretty closely to Cortopassi's outline, but in no way do I feel my opinion invalidates the Party for anyone else. Are we at a point where the mere expression of an opinion, in any terms whatsoever, is patently uncivil if it does not conform?
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2655
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by Cortopassi » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:40 am

glennds wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:26 am
sophie wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:14 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:52 am
I'm not sure I agree. I also see a party that (I may be brainwashed here, I am happy to be told that!)

--denies climate change, and puts little effort into renewables
--is generally anti-choice
--generally fights against making things more equal for the LGBT community
--has a pretty poor record on improving the immigration situation/ DACA
--is against socialized healthcare but has yet to put anything reasonable up in place of it
--has no problem with out of control spending and debt when it's spent by their side

So I am not seeing a party that aligns with things I want to see happen.

Maybe there's a new branch that will split off and be more moderate that I can support.
I hope you understand that your viewpoints (appreciated btw) do not invalidate the new Republican populism for everyone else. also a few critiques don't invalidate the entire philosophy. Have we really gotten to the point where it's now required to throw out the baby along with the bathwater? And where we've forgotten that it's actually possible to have a civil discussion that involves debating opposing points of view?

For these reasons I don't regard this as a civil post in keeping with my request above. Could you please edit it to make your viewpoints clear but refrain from implying that it is beneath you to engage in discourse with people who disagree with said viewpoints? Then we can happily talk about them. If you can't do that, then I respectfully ask that you delete your post and refrain from further posts in this thread.
Gosh, when I read Cortopassi's post all I see is a respectful disagreement with your outline of merits of The New Republican Populism. And as you requested, he did not anchor his comments to Trump personally. I am not seeing where he suggests throwing the whole party way or that any discourse of any kind is beneath him. Good grief!

BTW, my beliefs happen to line up pretty closely to Cortopassi's outline, but in no way do I feel my opinion invalidates the Party for anyone else. Are we at a point where the mere expression of an opinion, in any terms whatsoever, is patently uncivil if it does not conform?
yeah, sophie, I'm not sure what you want then. I have listed out major policies that if continued, are a major obstacle for me to be brought into the republican fold.

You should know by now I am happy to engage anyone on any topic. I am more seat of the pants driven, and I cannot always justify my positions logically, I know that. I might roll my eyes at some posts but I have never put anyone on ignore.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4215
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by sophie » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:46 am

These two lines from Cortopassi's post are what I found offensive:

"So I am not seeing a party that aligns with things I want to see happen.

Maybe there's a new branch that will split off and be more moderate that I can support."

He was saying that he wants those things to happen or he will have no part of the (presumably) Republican party, and that he would only support a "new branch" that subscribed to all of those things.

I said explicitly that those points were all worthy of discussion. He didn't want to discuss them, just lay them down as law. I hope you get that distinction.

Regarding immigration:

Tom - I disagree with you about the downsides of immigration in general. It's unskilled/low-skilled immigration that's the problem. Educated people who can contribute meaningfully and will create new jobs, increase the GDP, pay into the tax base while remaining a net financial positive etc. What you're thinking of are the people coming in from (say) Central America with zero education, no English skills and no intention of ever learning English, able to take only unskilled jobs thus creating downward pressure on wages and job conditions, and of course immediately becoming a drain on state budgets because they consume free healthcare and other welfare bennies.

So a key aspect of the New Republican Populism (NRP???) is a revision of the immigration system to use a scoring system like the ones used in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and virtually all other First World countries to prioritize desirable immigrants.

If Cortopassi had been able to bring himself to stay in the conversation, he would also have seen that I actually do support DACA - simply because there really is no humane alternative. But, I would propose that the parents of those children should be assessed fines or other civil penalty for their crime, and that DACA should be tied to a conversion to a point-based immigration system as per above. And, abolish the lottery, chain migration, H1b and birthright citizenship.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4246
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by doodle » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:59 am

I'm curious, what is the vision that New Republican Populists have for America? To me the issue with conservative movements is that they are inherently retrograde and oftentimes the cat cannot be put back into the bag. I'm sure hunter gatherer philosophers bemoaned the cramping and regulations that came with landed agriculture and societies....what do you mean I can't water my horses from this river, or set up my tent anywhere I please...or kill this buffalo here for my family? But how do we go back to that? I'm not sure the MAGA vision (although idyllic in the Norman Rockwell sense) has any better chance of becoming reality. The world is changing in weird ways....I think we need to look forward to innovate new ideas on how to deal with this reality. Soon we are going to be facing a world where automation and computers increasingly gut our job market. What globalism didn't finish off for American workers, this revolution surely will. I'm not sure the answer to these issues lie 70...much less 250 years in the past. I don't think we are going back.

Last night I was looking at face tattoos. 40 or 50 years ago tattoos were limited to convicts and motorcycle gangs and a few sailors. Then your mom started to get them. I remember when Tyson tattooed his face and how shocking that was. Now, I'm looking at face tattoos on the internet and thinking...well, I could get used to this.
Last edited by doodle on Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4257
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

Post by pugchief » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:59 am

sophie wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:27 am
Let's see what happens to the discourse on the forum when Trump as a person is taken out of the equation.

It is abundantly clear from both the 2016 and 2020 election results that Trump-style populism, with a healthy dose of free-market principles and above all a strong regard for personal freedom, is highly favored by broad swaths of the American electorate. It cuts across party lines, and racial and ethnic backgrounds. It is also national-centric ("America First", "Made in America" etc) and regards globalism and immigration as "shade of gray" issues with real potential downsides, especially for America's lower and lower/middle classes. It does not kowtow to corporations, but rather focuses on The People.

The Republican Party was forced to follow this path since 2016, and it's the best thing that could have happened to them. They were otherwise doomed to be strangled from within by the religious right, Tea Party activists, and congress members in the pockets of various corporations. Now, the party has real legs and could come to dominate in future elections, as the Democrats are slowly strangled by their own equivalent of these groups.
Astute observations, Sophie. I agree, the makeover has been a good thing. If Trump was anybody else than himself, there would have been a landslide in the White House and both chambers of Congress.
Post Reply