Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Where the Republican voters ARE going

In a rebuttal to Eric Zuesse’s analysis piece here on The Duran, we offer a conservative’s point of view on what Eric left unsaid

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,015 Views

One of our most esteemed writers, Eric Zuesse, offered a great piece, to be found here, that made some significant note of the fact that Republican voters are actually moving away from their support in the Republican Party’s Representatives and Senators in Congress, though they are on the whole not moving away from their support of President Trump.

He went further, noting that the strength and “intensity” of Republican voter support appeared to have eroded to a significant degree following the signature of the US $1.3 trillion “omnibus” spending bill submitted to the President’s desk at the last minute before a partial government shutdown was to ensue.

Now, the interesting thing about the piece is that when I first read it I did not know anything about Mr. Zuesse, who he is, what his point of view is shaped by, and so on. So I just read his piece as I often read anything here on our site, with an assumption that if it is here, it’s probably darn good journalism and worth paying attention to.

And in this I am correct about Mr. Zuesse. He writes in as balanced a way as he can without revealing or sacrificing his personal perspective.

It was only much later that I discovered that he is very far to the left politically, and is at best a cynic about things that conservatives value highly (namely Christianity), as one can see in the blurb for one of his books, here.

I do not say this to censure Mr. Zuesse; nevertheless, I disagree with his point of view expressed in his book, for I though I believe he was as thoughtful and as fair as he could be, he was restricted from facing the truth because to do so would violate his adopted set of perspectives..

So, I will respectfully, and from my point of view, offer a response.

I think Eric got these first two points absolutely right. The Republicans are indeed not feeling the love for their party. What I mean by this is that they are increasingly aware that the Representatives and Senators they have elected in the recent past have been unfaithful to the electorate’s desires, and, once they got into Washington, all the resolve they stated about how things were going to change evaporated. The only person who really shines on the GOP supporter screen as being a man of his word is President Trump himself.

The second point, this being of voter “intensity” of support among GOP voters and its decrease, was a spot occurrence, in my opinion.

Eric rightly caught the reaction to Mr. Trump’s signature of the omnibus bill, for it was very poorly received among many Trump supporters. This was bolstered in no small manner by the point of view expressed with great force by Rush Limbaugh on his radio program the day that the bill was signed, as well as the day before. Both Mr. Limbaugh and his listeners (including myself, honestly) were extremely dismayed about this. Many conservative folks, including journalists on both sides were quick to gleefully note (and I mean gleefully, on BOTH sides) that this meant that President Trump had sold everyone down the river and was now “just another politician” in the White House, betraying the people who supported and voted for him.

Except that he wasn’t. 

About one day into the weekend after this awful bill was signed, an interesting detail surfaced: The “Omnibus spending bill” is not a budget. It is guidance on how an allotted amount of money should be spent, but the President can change many of these categories and expenditures at his own discretion. 

In this way, so went the analysis, the border wall is paid for and will begin construction immediately, because President Trump and his team found that the wall can be considered a matter of Defense and national security, and they got a lot of money to build up precisely that. President Trump himself announced this on the Saturday after the bill was signed.

Now, this matter is being challenged, as to whether or not the President can indeed legally do this, but his Defense Secretary is examining this idea for ways to get it done.

There are other similar aspects.

Now, although the principle of signing this bill still tastes bitter to Trump supporters, we also know Trump himself hated it, because he bluntly stated that he was never going to sign something like this again.

It is my opinion that most of his supporters believe he means exactly what he has said.

The Congress is not likely to take Mr. Trump seriously, but if the pattern holds that has held ever since Inauguration Day 2017, Congressional resistance will overplay its hand and the President will pound them into the ground for their refusal to change.

To examine the matter of Trump’s supporters not being very supportive of the GOP itself, the most obvious part of the answer lies in the 2014 midterm election and the ensuing several months afterwards.

But to get a fuller picture of this we have to set the WayBack machine to 1994, during the first term of President William “Bill” Jefferson Clinton.

When Bill Clinton won the White House, he started governing as an extremely elitist leftist liberal. One of the first things he attempted was to make a declaration to allow homosexual people to openly serve in the military. This measure was a massive attempt at social engineering to force the military personnel to be made comfortable with a matter that they were overwhelmingly not comfortable with. As in most liberal policymaking, the traditional value must be thrown under the bus in the name of “progress.” However, Congress moved during 1993 to outflank the President and then successfully cut his move off. The result was a modified position of “don’t ask, don’t tell” regarding homosexual lifestyle, which was really only incrementally different than the president’s proposed radical move.

In the midterm elections of 1994, the GOP successfully observed that the hard-left policies of the President and the Democrat-led Congress were increasingly out of step with the will of a huge number of American people. In response to this, the GOP leadership issued their “Contract with America”, which included some ten very specific policy measures that a GOP-led House and Senate would enact if given the majority in these respective bodies. The premise was stated very clearly:

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

This strongly stated promise and premise won a GOP victory that effectively halted the liberals onslaught on American life, and the GOP controlled congress effectively forced President Clinton into abandoning his excessively liberal course. Over the next six years, this combination actually resulted in fairly effective leadership.

This incident in history is NOT setting up for a repeat. And in fact, the Great GOP Betrayal of 2014, 20 years later, was exactly the opposite in terms of manifested results.

The 2014 midterm elections featured a suspected conservative “silent majority” who had been largely cowed into silence by the greatly intensified liberal screed under President Obama and his extremely liberal Democrat Congress.

Millions of Americans were out of work, the result of a smothered economy that kept struggling to revive, only to be slapped down by ever-increasing government regulation and the oppressive burden of “ObamaCare”, nee the Affordable Care Act, which was anything but that.

Also, increasing discrimination and persecution of people and businesses wishing to conform themselves to traditional Christian ethics and morality resulted in these businesses closing, and an increasing sense of fear among Christian believers in the United States to speak up about their own point of views about life, lest they be blackballed and forced to resign or sued out of business.

The GOP candidates did not have a unified party agenda at all. There was no Republican platform, and no clearly stated document in the same manner as that of the Contract with America. However, almost all the GOP candidates, and certainly all who got elected successfully, did campaign on the promise that they would “stop Obama” if elected.

When the new Congress was seated, these “conservative” candidates proceeded to fold to the President. Every time. At first there was the attempt to create a narrative that said “we are strategically maneuvering Obama into a position where he will have to go with our intents” but that moment never came. Obama got everything he wanted and the minority Democrats continued to run the country, and the problems aforementioned only became worse more quickly than ever.

By 2015, the Supreme Court, with a 5-4 conservative-liberal composition actually created a “right” out of thin air, sanctioning same-sex marriage as a “constitutionally protected right” without legislation to sanction it passing.

Up to that time, most states that had put this measure up for state election ballots received resounding NO votes, but in one decision the Court swept all this aside, and it did so with a supposedly conservative majority.

The GOP had by now earned a reputation for being completely ineffective, “afraid of Obama,” and the seeds for the idea of the “establishment politician” were planted and growing quite well.

It was in this environment that the GOP offered up 17 candidates for the party’s primaries. Of these, three people were non politicians: Dr. Benjamin Carson, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and well-expressed Christian; Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP; and Real-Estate and Entertainment mogul Donald Trump.

The rest of the field consisted of GOP senators and governors, and the establishment among them showed its early preference for Governor Jeb Bush, who utterly flopped in debates and in his campaign.

The public distaste for the currently elected members of the GOP was slow for the media to discover, but for many people it was instantaneous. As soon as Donald Trump came down the escalator in Trump Tower in New York, and announced his candidacy for President, it was all over for the establishment.

Dr Zuesse rightly understood the data that showed the GOP voters leaving their party. But he did not go back far enough or investigate the causes for them to do so, nor did he successfully uncover why their support for Donald Trump is getting stronger over time instead of eroding.

That has to do with the fact that almost all of the Congressional Republicans have failed, or have refused, to understand the will of the people who elected them.

As the Democrats have increasingly shifted away from representing the wishes of “ordinary” Americans (the middle incomes and lower income citizens who are striving to make more of themselves) to the increasingly fragmented ranks of citizens who define themselves through identity politics, the GOP has been given the greatest opportunity it ever had to fill in the vacuum.

And in terms of promises and political campaigning, they have largely succeeded in recent history in at least speaking to the regular American on their terms. That is why there is a substantial GOP House majority and a marginal Senate Majority. The words had some effect.

But the GOP’s reputation for caving to liberals has been precisely what keeps them out of decisive majorities in both houses, especially the Senate, because the actions of these elected officials show only that once they get into DC politics, their actual representation of their constituents vanishes.

The essence of populism is that the populist supports the concerns of ordinary people. THIS is why Donald Trump’s support remains strong.

The funny thing is that both parties in Congress advertise populism in some ways, but neither side delivers it.

The Democrats’ alignment is the most clear to see, that being a combination of adherence to the principles expressed in secular humanism, with clear and specific measures taken along any expressed topic of non-traditional identity politics.

The GOP advertises a general idea of conservatism, but that idea itself is cloudy, because to speak clearly about it, especially about Christian values, means a swift and deafening attack from the Left.

Going further, the GOP’s notion of conservatism is itself also sliding left, away from traditional values.

So what is “conservative” now usually refers to the notion of spending in the Federal government and having a lot of military power.

There is no real “heart” to the GOP’s expression of its policy views, for again, to clearly express an alternative to the Left’s strange worldview is to invite a visceral fight against the mainstream media (which is very powerful and strongly aligned left), and the shrill voices of professional victims who are able to shout and manipulate the opposition into looking “heartless.” To fight such people, one needs to be able to fight just as dirty as they do.

Enter Donald Trump.

To fight “dirty” politics does not require lies, but it does require swift rebuttal and passion.

Far from the normally thought-of definition of political or presidential statesmanship, Donald Trump’s fiery swiftness at engaging media and politically based slander has been nothing but a constant surprise – and a burden – for the mainstream press for as long as his campaign and presidency have been in force.

It is not only the fact that Donald Trump fights back against falsehoods spread about him. His response is undoubtedly populist and he expresses how many people feel in his own statements.

The recent passage of the Omnibus bill is a great example. The President signed it, and he received great criticism for doing so, but he also said “I will never sign a bill like this again.”

There is every reason to believe he means what he says, and his supporters know this. Even now, as of April 4th, a Rasmussen poll has his general approval ratings at 51% – and this is an increase over time since he was elected, not a decrease. Usually presidential approval ratings start rather high and deteriorate over time, but not so with Donald Trump. His started rather low and have gradually been on the uptick as his policy moves take effect.

From the point of view of many conservatives, Mr. Trump is the engineer and executor of these policy changes. There is no Congressional hero on his side, though he does praise Congress when they go his way, including very generous naming of names of those who he recognizes were helpful.

Far from the Obama days, President Trump is quick to lavish praise on any allies he has, and he is equally as quick to criticize those who attack him. And yet in spite of this collegial attitude, most of the support goes to the President.

While Zuesse proposes that this is because President Trump is slick, a “Teflon Don”, this is only part of the reason. We suggest that the other reason is that, to date, no GOP congressman has shown themselves as “part of the plan” with regards to President Trump’s agenda. Even to the GOP stalwarts, President Trump is a problem. Maybe it can be summarized by this statement:

The private sector expects results.

President Trump is giving them those results. When the elected representatives of either party realize that it is precisely this that the American people have wanted for decades, then maybe they will win back the support of the American voter.

In regards to the GOP, this is a critical issue come November because the potential exists for voter cynicism about the GOP choices to result in a series of no-shows for the midterms, or worse, election of Democrats promising change.

The American voter is on average, unfortunately still demonstrably gullible, and an unproven candidate with a slick message of change could win it, and take the change the totally wrong way, or block the moves that the President is making.

Either way, the midterm election of 2018 is going to be a watershed moment for the Trump presidency.

It is not going to be a referendum on his success. It will be a referendum on the voters’ faith that their candidates will actually create results.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending