Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"?

[JA]

Donald Trump's Reactionary Mind

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

[Mr. Smith]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

American Conservatism doesn't seem to have ever been anything but some self-contradictory excuses for what those espousing it wanted to see happen.

[Virginiá]

Sure, most of it (and the primary question asked), but I disagree that Trump was the best they had and that the others would have been creamed. Perhaps by a version of Hillary Clinton without the email scandal (and the subsequent fbi investigation and Comey stuff), but that's not what version we got. All that scandal/drama, and all the other smaller issues she had really does add up and really did hurt her numbers. Far less offensive Republican candidates who, bland as they may be, probably would have been well-positioned to defeat her. To say otherwise seems like an endorsement of the idea that all that drama and scandal didn't really matter, which I vehemently disagree with.

[uti2]

Sure, most of it (and the primary question asked), but I disagree that Trump was the best they had and that the others would have been creamed. Perhaps by a version of Hillary Clinton without the email scandal (and the subsequent fbi investigation and Comey stuff), but that's not what version we got. All that scandal/drama, and all the other smaller issues she had really does add up and really did hurt her numbers. Far less offensive Republican candidates who, bland as they may be, probably would have been well-positioned to defeat her. To say otherwise seems like an endorsement of the idea that all that drama and scandal didn't really matter, which I vehemently disagree with.

Comey only went public on the investigation upon seeing a forged Russian document in May after the Russians had deployed their propaganda campaign following Trump winning the GOP nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politics/james-comey-fbi-investigation-fake-russian-intelligence/index.html

The Russians were specifically courting Trump campaign officials in April, before Trump had even won the nomination:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/trump-russia-mueller-indictment.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

Bush Sr. had the iran-contra drama, Ollie North was indicted in July 1988.

Dukakis quite literally was up over Bush Sr. by double digits in early polling and had a net favorables margin of 67-10.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/05/27/dukakis-takes-early-lead-over-bush/0ed5eed4-7b0e-44e4-8c13-6adff6603e82/

Favorability numbers are not fixed, they change over the course of campaigning. Being disliked is generally just an indictator of how well-known you are.

Obama was more ostensibly disliked than Mccain and Romney. Same goes for GWB v. Kerry & even Reagan vs. Carter & Mondale.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-most-hated-candidate-usually-wins/article/2590520


This article is also actually from December 18, 1987:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,145687,00.html

"Dukakis and Paul Simon are the only two with relatively low negatives"

Dukakis had amongst the lowest unfavorables in the entire Democratic field in terms of early favorables.

[pbrower2a]

Conservatives did not adequately reject the demagoguery of Donald Trump. Considering the history of demagogues-turned-leaders in other political orders, anyone who pays attention to history should have recognized that Donald Trump was a very bad gamble even if he was the one to achieve an agenda. Democratic process almost never gives anyone all that he wants at one time, and the survival of democracy implies that people generally accept that reality. One gets perhaps what one needs (like K-12 education, police protection, a workable legal process, national defense, and maybe some relief in hard times for oneself) and gets the chance to work for the rest. 

American Conservatism lost its credibility when it attached itself to a celebration of pathological greed and selfishness that better resembles the feudal lords and despotic kings of the Middle Ages. That selfish greed comes with gross oppression of the sort that marked Russian elites before the Bolshevik Revolution. It cannot be good for an America that needs some political concord, as during an apocalyptic war or its aftermath. 

To be effective, conservatives must offer the common man something worthy of preservation. Elite power and indulgence that comes with oppression and poverty fits only the scummiest people, and not the fundamental decency necessary for a vibrant economy and stable families. 

Conservatism will revive in America, but it will need to redevelop old decencies, including respect for diversity, legal precedent, diplomatic protocol, fairness, and human development. The supposed conservatism which offers inequality as bounty and superstition as official reality will either implode or bring about catastrophic results. But American conservatism around 2035 will sound more like Barack Obama than like Donald Trump. 

[dead0man]

You guys should have some easy elections ahead then!  (no, this is not a re-post from last year....I checked)

[HillGoose]

wrong, Rubio or another neocon would have won like you would never have seen.

Republicans need to go back to 2004 if we're going to win anything.

[uti2]

wrong, Rubio or another neocon would have won like you would never have seen.

Republicans need to go back to 2004 if we're going to win anything.

Because the GOP base is very enthused by Bush, Mccain & Flake? People who get booed at the very mention of their names?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-mention-of-john-mccain-george-w-bush-1508564499-htmlstory.html

People loved 'Neocons' so much that hillary who ran her entire GE campaign as a 'neocon' courting republicans and lost on that platform?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/clinton-touts-endorsement-from-pro-torture-neocons.html

Also another Pro-Tip, Bush didn't run as a Neocon in 2000.

[publicunofficial]

Most Republican voters are basically nihilists who only vote R if the candidate promises to make life harder for people they don't like, this is already known.

[IceSpear]

Most Republican voters are basically nihilists who only vote R if the candidate promises to make life harder for people they don't like, this is already known.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

You guys should have some easy elections ahead then!  (no, this is not a re-post from last year....I checked)

 Nah. Team 'civil rights and public safety nets are cool' is just as capable of shooting itself in the... foot as Team 'Pedophiles and theocrats are awesome'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You guys should have some easy elections ahead then!  (no, this is not a re-post from last year....I checked)

Since when has ideological consistency helped parties win elections?

[MasterJedi]

As I recently read and agree with, lately, especially the last 10 years, it's like a car, R means reverse, D means forward.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

[uti2]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

Rubio/Cruz aren't that different besides some superficial traits. All of those traits would be attacked.

He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

[dead0man]

You guys should have some easy elections ahead then!  (no, this is not a re-post from last year....I checked)

Since when has ideological consistency helped parties win elections?

it's hard to tell here in the US where neither party is consistent at all (because their tents have to be so damned big)

[OSR stands with Israel]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

Rubio/Cruz aren't that different besides some superficial traits. All of those traits would be attacked.

He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

Rubio supports Immigration Reform , Cruz does not


Rubio also didnt propose a flat tax like cruz did

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

wrong, Rubio or another neocon would have won like you would never have seen.

Republicans need to go back to 2004 if we're going to win anything.

Voters in the critical upper Midwest states have rejected hawks and neocons going back to McGovern.

You find no relation whatsoever between a Republicans who loudly rejects his party's foreign policy consensus, a Democrat who is her party's most hawkish nominee in more than a generation and the Democrat losing the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, none of which had gone Republican in almost 30 years?

[uti2]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

Rubio/Cruz aren't that different besides some superficial traits. All of those traits would be attacked.

He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

Rubio supports Immigration Reform , Cruz does not


Rubio also didnt propose a flat tax like cruz did

Rubio wanted 0% tax rates on capital gains/dividends. So basically you're saying immigration? Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

Rubio/Cruz aren't that different besides some superficial traits. All of those traits would be attacked.

He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

Rubio supports Immigration Reform , Cruz does not


Rubio also didnt propose a flat tax like cruz did

Rubio wanted 0% tax rates on capital gains/dividends. So basically you're saying immigration? Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

W Bush also supported eliminating tax rates on dividends : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/us/bush-budget-plan-would-eliminate-tax-on-dividends.html

Marco Rubio is George W Bush 2.0 not Ted Cruz 2.0

[HillGoose]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

Rubio/Cruz aren't that different besides some superficial traits. All of those traits would be attacked.

He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

Rubio supports Immigration Reform , Cruz does not


Rubio also didnt propose a flat tax like cruz did

Rubio wanted 0% tax rates on capital gains/dividends. So basically you're saying immigration? Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

W Bush also supported eliminating tax rates on dividends : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/us/bush-budget-plan-would-eliminate-tax-on-dividends.html

Marco Rubio is George W Bush 2.0 not Ted Cruz 2.0

That's even worse.

I want George W. Bush 2.0 so bad, 0% capital gains tax makes my eyes water with happiness.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I, too, long for two unsustainable wars, one of which was launched under false pretenses, both adding trillions of dollars to the debt, eroding public confidence in institutions, resulting in thousands of deaths to soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and eroding confidence in American hegemony, while also adding trillions to the debt via tax cuts for the already well-to-do and prescription drug giveways, all the while eroding civil liberties.

W was great.

[HillGoose]

I, too, long for two unsustainable wars, one of which was launched under false pretenses, both adding trillions of dollars to the debt, eroding public confidence in institutions, resulting in thousands of deaths to soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and eroding confidence in American hegemony, while also adding trillions to the debt via tax cuts for the already well-to-do and prescription drug giveways, all the while eroding civil liberties.

W was great.

Americans don't realize we are at war with those who want to destroy us. Don't let the liberal media tell you Saddam didn't have WMDs that he would funnel to Al-Qaeda. Listen to Georges Sada and Hannity.

Darryl Worley- Have You Forgotten?