4 ms·

>Didn't both of those publications vigorously oppose Trump? Yes. >The "conservative intellectual" niche may be the most politically irrelevant group in the co

>Didn't both of those publications vigorously oppose Trump? Yes. >The "conservative intellectual" niche may be the most politically irrelevant group in the country. Trump won the Presidency, not the Movement. The rest of the GOP, though shell-shocked, has not suddenly ditched conservatism and embraced Trumpism. The vast majority of the GOP members of the House and Senate, and those in state governments, are conservative, not Trumpist. Conservatives, not just Republicans, have far more power in the US right now than at any point in recent memory. And thankfully, the Founding Fathers, sharp blokes that they were, crafted a system of checks and balances. I suspect we'll hear fewer cries of "obstruction!" when Congress blocks President Trump's policies than we did for Obama's.

sn9 10y ago
You're conflating politicians with voters. Most GOP voters are not conservative true believers. The fact that Trump won the GOP nomination is proof enough of that.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  That's certainly true, and you'll see Republicans pass some legislation they don't want to. But they're not going to rubber-stamp policies they find abhorrent. I suspect the trillion-dollar infrastructure spend will happen. But the "Muslim registry", and similar illiberal proposals, will not.
  - nl 10y ago
    How do you see that aligning even slightly with your earlier statement about not passing Obama agenda because it wasn't aligned with conservative beliefs? How can a trillion dollars infrastructure spend under Trump and yet a health care plan that would save money be blocked by under Obama? I applaud your constructive approach in this conversation BTW. And I hope you are right about blocking Trumps craziness.
    - redthrowaway 10y ago
      I suspect Congressional Republicans will pass Trump's infrastructure plan because they're shell shocked and not quite sure what their base demands of them. It's not an ideological capitulation, but rather a defensive retreating into their shell while they figure out where they stand. Was Trump really a denunciation of the Conservative Movement, or just a well-known figure who eked out an EC victory against a detested and uninspiring opponent? >a health care plan that would save money be blocked by under Obama? Which plan was this? Obamacare was a massive expenditure. If you're talking about proposals to improve it, why would Republicans try to fix a program they thought was ill-conceived and detestable in the first place? They now have the opportunity to repeal and replace Obamacare whole cloth. Let's see what they do with it. >I applaud your constructive approach in this conversation BTW. Thanks. I'm trying to be civil, hopefully with some success. I realize SV types aren't a natural audience for conservative views, but I think HN is a pretty good forum for people to discuss opposing views rationally and civilly. >And I hope you are right about blocking Trumps craziness. You and me both. I'm more hopeful than optimistic, at least in the first year while Congressional Republicans find their legs. My appraisal is that they'll probably pass some legislation that's anathemic to conservatives, but they'll stop short of endorsing illiberalism. There's a personal, moral difference between doing things you think are wrong and doing things you think are Wrong, and the latter will remind Republicans of who they are and what they believe.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
No, you'll hear more cries of "obstruction!". They'll be on Trump's Twitter feed. If current trends continue, the media will feel that each one is news, and will write an article about each one. My hope is that Trump Twitter fatigue sets in very early.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- drewrv 10y ago
  > My hope is that Trump Twitter fatigue sets in very early. I've been hoping that for a year now :(
aggie 10y ago
The problem I have with the GOP's obstructionism was not that it was checking power, but that it was purely political. They obstructed policies that had been supporting by conservatives in the past, just because they didn't want Obama to be seen as having succeeded with anything. That is not what the checks and balances were designed for.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > but that it was purely political. Any governing action is entirely political; I think your problem is that it was entirely partisan.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  A lot of conservatives saw it as their duty to stand athwart Obama's agenda and yell, "Stop!" And quite frankly, they succeeded. I think you're unfairly discounting how much of that was ideologically driven, rather than the result of simple partisanship.
  - aggie 10y ago
    You can say that a strategy to regain power is an ideological action in the long run, but then what is the difference between ideology and partisanship?
    - redthrowaway 10y ago
      It wasn't a strategy to regain power, it was a mission to prevent the President from inflicting further harm upon the country (according to conservative thought). There were plenty of Republicans who thought it would cost them in the elections. But they saw it as worthwhile to prevent the expansion of the welfare state and the enshrinement of Obama's progressive agenda in law. The notion that they wanted to make government work worse in order to bolster their claim that government doesn't work is what progressives tell each other, not what motivates conservatives. Ditto working class voters "voting against their interests", etc.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
SerpentJoe 10y ago
Possibly because they won't be doing it, or at least not going so far as to unconstitutionally refuse to hold hearings on Supreme Court replacements.
- bmelton 10y ago
  On what grounds do you find a refusal to consent to an executive's appointment to be unconstitutional? As someone who's been studying the constitution for five years, it seems eminently constitutional to me as well as every lawyer or law professor I've discussed the matter with. Washington Post has asserted the claim that it is unconstitutional as a "3 pinocchios" falsity[1] [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/...
crucini 10y ago
Please don't take this personally, but I think the "obstruction" comment illustrates why political topics tend to degrade into something bad. It's a subcase of "blue team criticizes red team for action X, but conveniently ignores blue team performing action X". Problem is this accusation gets thrown constantly by both red and blue teams. And it's probably true most of the time: teams are partisan. It's also hard to objectively evaluate. Political discussion on the net is mostly just replaying these well-worn tropes. Again, nothing personal - I have been thinking since the politics ban how we can have good political discussions.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  I actually agree with you, and fighting the urge to get a dig in can be tough. You can also see from the other responses to that comment how it derails conversation. I'll try to be better in the future.
  - crucini 10y ago
    Yeah, such comments are the spice of conversation; without them, it's a bit bland. Somehow they work better in person.
redthrowaway 10y ago
As I can't edit this comment any more, let me apologize for the "obstruction" bit. It was a cheap blow, not a meaningful contribution. But please do pay attention to the "checks and balances" bit, then go read Federalist 51[1] (if men were angels...) or at least a decent summary of it[2]. This notion of government being designed to pit power against power in an effort to avoid what Trump would be if he governed unopposed is central to conservative belief, and it's why we keep banging on about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. [1] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm [2] https://mises.org/library/if-men-were-angels https://mises.org/library/if-men-were-angels The money shot: "The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

sn9 10y ago

You're conflating politicians with voters. Most GOP voters are not conservative true believers. The fact that Trump won the GOP nomination is proof enough of that.

redthrowaway 10y ago
That's certainly true, and you'll see Republicans pass some legislation they don't want to. But they're not going to rubber-stamp policies they find abhorrent. I suspect the trillion-dollar infrastructure spend will happen. But the "Muslim registry", and similar illiberal proposals, will not.
- nl 10y ago
  How do you see that aligning even slightly with your earlier statement about not passing Obama agenda because it wasn't aligned with conservative beliefs? How can a trillion dollars infrastructure spend under Trump and yet a health care plan that would save money be blocked by under Obama? I applaud your constructive approach in this conversation BTW. And I hope you are right about blocking Trumps craziness.
  - redthrowaway 10y ago
    I suspect Congressional Republicans will pass Trump's infrastructure plan because they're shell shocked and not quite sure what their base demands of them. It's not an ideological capitulation, but rather a defensive retreating into their shell while they figure out where they stand. Was Trump really a denunciation of the Conservative Movement, or just a well-known figure who eked out an EC victory against a detested and uninspiring opponent? >a health care plan that would save money be blocked by under Obama? Which plan was this? Obamacare was a massive expenditure. If you're talking about proposals to improve it, why would Republicans try to fix a program they thought was ill-conceived and detestable in the first place? They now have the opportunity to repeal and replace Obamacare whole cloth. Let's see what they do with it. >I applaud your constructive approach in this conversation BTW. Thanks. I'm trying to be civil, hopefully with some success. I realize SV types aren't a natural audience for conservative views, but I think HN is a pretty good forum for people to discuss opposing views rationally and civilly. >And I hope you are right about blocking Trumps craziness. You and me both. I'm more hopeful than optimistic, at least in the first year while Congressional Republicans find their legs. My appraisal is that they'll probably pass some legislation that's anathemic to conservatives, but they'll stop short of endorsing illiberalism. There's a personal, moral difference between doing things you think are wrong and doing things you think are Wrong, and the latter will remind Republicans of who they are and what they believe.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

No, you'll hear more cries of "obstruction!". They'll be on Trump's Twitter feed. If current trends continue, the media will feel that each one is news, and will write an article about each one. My hope is that Trump Twitter fatigue sets in very early.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
drewrv 10y ago
> My hope is that Trump Twitter fatigue sets in very early. I've been hoping that for a year now :(

aggie 10y ago

The problem I have with the GOP's obstructionism was not that it was checking power, but that it was purely political. They obstructed policies that had been supporting by conservatives in the past, just because they didn't want Obama to be seen as having succeeded with anything. That is not what the checks and balances were designed for.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> but that it was purely political. Any governing action is entirely political; I think your problem is that it was entirely partisan.
redthrowaway 10y ago
A lot of conservatives saw it as their duty to stand athwart Obama's agenda and yell, "Stop!" And quite frankly, they succeeded. I think you're unfairly discounting how much of that was ideologically driven, rather than the result of simple partisanship.
- aggie 10y ago
  You can say that a strategy to regain power is an ideological action in the long run, but then what is the difference between ideology and partisanship?
  - redthrowaway 10y ago
    It wasn't a strategy to regain power, it was a mission to prevent the President from inflicting further harm upon the country (according to conservative thought). There were plenty of Republicans who thought it would cost them in the elections. But they saw it as worthwhile to prevent the expansion of the welfare state and the enshrinement of Obama's progressive agenda in law. The notion that they wanted to make government work worse in order to bolster their claim that government doesn't work is what progressives tell each other, not what motivates conservatives. Ditto working class voters "voting against their interests", etc.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago

SerpentJoe 10y ago

Possibly because they won't be doing it, or at least not going so far as to unconstitutionally refuse to hold hearings on Supreme Court replacements.

bmelton 10y ago
On what grounds do you find a refusal to consent to an executive's appointment to be unconstitutional? As someone who's been studying the constitution for five years, it seems eminently constitutional to me as well as every lawyer or law professor I've discussed the matter with. Washington Post has asserted the claim that it is unconstitutional as a "3 pinocchios" falsity[1] [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/...

crucini 10y ago

Please don't take this personally, but I think the "obstruction" comment illustrates why political topics tend to degrade into something bad. It's a subcase of "blue team criticizes red team for action X, but conveniently ignores blue team performing action X". Problem is this accusation gets thrown constantly by both red and blue teams. And it's probably true most of the time: teams are partisan. It's also hard to objectively evaluate. Political discussion on the net is mostly just replaying these well-worn tropes. Again, nothing personal - I have been thinking since the politics ban how we can have good political discussions.

redthrowaway 10y ago
I actually agree with you, and fighting the urge to get a dig in can be tough. You can also see from the other responses to that comment how it derails conversation. I'll try to be better in the future.
- crucini 10y ago
  Yeah, such comments are the spice of conversation; without them, it's a bit bland. Somehow they work better in person.

redthrowaway 10y ago

As I can't edit this comment any more, let me apologize for the "obstruction" bit. It was a cheap blow, not a meaningful contribution. But please do pay attention to the "checks and balances" bit, then go read Federalist 51[1] (if men were angels...) or at least a decent summary of it[2]. This notion of government being designed to pit power against power in an effort to avoid what Trump would be if he governed unopposed is central to conservative belief, and it's why we keep banging on about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. [1] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm [2] https://mises.org/library/if-men-were-angels https://mises.org/library/if-men-were-angels The money shot: "The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."