Quote:
Originally Posted by bradleym
Labels are tricky, and nowadays 'conservative' and 'liberal' are almost meaningless terms. Was planning my own rant, then read this opinion piece this morning which does a much better job:
|
I'm with you, and sort of agree with that link, mostly:
Consider, oh, David Brooks. His conservatism, of Sam’s Club affectation, fiscal conservatism, tepid social liberalism, and genial trolling of center-leftists at Davos — whom does it speak for in today’s politics, beyond Brooks?
Or Ross Douthat. He is sporadically interesting, often infuriating, but above all, pretty idiosyncratic. His socially conservative “reformicon” thing — whom does it speak for in today’s politics, beyond Douthat?
Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss are a familiar type of glib contrarian. Their opposition to Trump has given them undue credibility among Washington lefties, whom they relentlessly (and boringly) troll. But whom are they speaking for?
I'd rather state this as there are very few real conservatives, most just lie and call themselves that in an attempt to absorb the legitimacy that people like WFBjr created.
And certainly no Trumpers are conservatives ... truthfully Trump is simply a media prima donna in a constant state of using whatever he's doing that day to generate press ... and he's excellent at that: generating media attention.
Unfortunately that's the only thing Trump is good at and he does it at the expense of every other thing including his family, friends, and many times himself. He's the king of wing.
Trump's policy ideas do, however, have a historical basis, just one that's been discredited for 300 years, Mercantilism: put up a wall around your castle (which Trump literally wants to do), hoard gold (again, he literally wants to do this), and screw your trade partners because it's a zero sum game. (again, Trump's actual policy idea) This was basically the 1600s economy: win, while others lose.
This mentality led to horrible wars, genocide, and ultimately the holocaust.
The change in thinking began with Adam Smith in the mid 1700s (and the "invisible hand") which basically posited that open trade created a win-win rising tide that lifted all boats. The labor and capital didn't have to fight because a country could create a "virtuous circle" of wealth creation based on trade that would enrich everyone (instead of one person's win at cost of another's loss).
That's why Adam Smith's revolutionary book was called "Wealth of Nations", not "My Nation's Wealth is Your Nation's Loss"
Conservatism is literally founded on Adam Smith's notion of a rising tide of wealth.
Trump is a neo-mercantilist, literally the opposite of a conservative, and a throwback to the 1700s mining economy.