The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Ace of Spades Goes Full-On Populist?

Posted on | December 9, 2015 | 269 Comments

Because I’ve been up to my ears in radical feminism for the past year, I haven’t monitored the day-to-day developments of the GOP presidential primary campaign the way I did during the 2012 cycle. As a result, I am unaware (and really, do not care) which of my blogger friends are supporting which candidate. My attitude for the 2016 campaign can be summarized in three words: Anybody But Clinton. After my (ultimately futile) hyper-involvement in the 2012 campaign, I simply do not want to expend mental or emotional energy worrying about who the Republicans nominate. Others do not have that attitude, however, which brings us to Ace of Spades discussing the latest Donald Trump controversy:

Laura Ingraham: GOP will rip itself apart at convention to avoid nominating Trump.
Krauthammer: Trump’s proposal is “deeply bigoted,” “indefensible.”
Josh Earnest: Trump’s proposal consigns him for the new and improved “Wrong side of history,” which is now “the dustbin of history.” . . .
Ingraham points out that Trump’s proposal comes in a particular context: When the establishments of both parties already want to take him out, and are willing to seize on whatever cudgel is at hand to do so.
They’re not going to beat him this way.
The establishment’s yelling about everything has gone from tedious to exhausting to infuriating.

Read the whole thing. I had noticed, occasionally, Ace’s increasing frustration with the GOP establishment the past year or so, but I guess I underestimated the intensity of his frustration, or his seriousness about the immigration problem. Knowing Ace, he’s the last guy I would expect to dive off into Pat Buchanan/Peter Brimelow/John Derbyshire paleoconservative-style populism which I’m not saying he has, but I think he definitely now understands the teeth-grinding fury the Old Right felt toward the GOP’s constant compromising with liberalism. Insofar as any conservative is serious about defeating the Left, I think, he must eventually experience that kind of reaction. The alternative is to become an unprincipled centrist hack like Steve Schmidt or Nicolle Wallace.

Honestly, I’ve got a Zen-like serenity about the Trump phenomenon. The prospect of Trump going thermonuclear and running as an independent is the worst-case scenario, and so what? He will do it or he won’t. Republicans who want to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination have to reckon with that possibility, and let them worry about it.

Not my problem.

If Ace is saying “burn it down,” there may be no alternative. It is not Trump’s fault that the GOP establishment is impotent. It’s not Ace’s fault. It’s not my fault. It’s not your fault. That arrogant fat-faced bastard Karl Rove? Yeah, I’m willing to blame it all on him, because why not? Populism needs a scapegoat and he’ll do. So if everything goes sideways between now and November 2016, and Hillary Clinton is elected because Trump went third-party and got 34% of the vote . . . ?

Burn it down, I say, and blame it all on Karl.




 

Category: Ace of Spades, Election, Republicans

Comments

269 Responses to “Ace of Spades Goes Full-On Populist?”

  1. NeoWayland
    December 11th, 2015 @ 7:30 am

    Yes.

    Which is why we’re stuck in choosing “the lesser of two evils.”

    And why government and taxes grow with very little benefit to you.

    Government is not your friend.

  2. Squid Hunt
    December 11th, 2015 @ 10:09 am

    First of all, we’re already getting flooded with third worlders. With no welfare state they would only come here 1. By their own volition. 2. As long as there were jobs.

    And there are already people in this country passionate about their beliefs. It’s not opportunity that frustrates them. It’s government corruption. A government based on laws with respect to liberties would punish those that infringed on others and curb the passions to a reasonable level. Are you saying it would be worse than we have now in inner cities and Europe has in its muslim burroughs?

  3. Squid Hunt
    December 11th, 2015 @ 10:13 am

    I think ending the welfare state would end most of our social and civil problems. No welfare state, people would be responsible for their own actions. No welfare state, government would shrink. No welfare state, businesses would grow. Think seriously about what the effect of large numbers of our population being out of work and sitting around waiting on a check really does. Think about the class envy of those waiting in line with their paychecks to get the cheap brank cereal and chicken while the person in front of them is swiping an EBT to pay for their steak and roast. We fell down when we stopped putting people to work and making them responsible for their own behavior. Cut it off and you’d be amazed at how much better we would be.

  4. Matt_SE
    December 11th, 2015 @ 10:37 am

    That’s true, but he painted with a broad brush. He should’ve narrowed it down a bit.

  5. Robert What?
    December 11th, 2015 @ 1:52 pm

    The Clintons owe so many favors to so many bad / dangerous people that becoming the next President is the only hope she has of paying those favors off. My theory is that if she fails to become the next President we will read about some unfortunate “accident” befalling her.

  6. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:22 pm

    I’m not sure why RSM named those people. None of them are populists. I’m thinking those are just the names that popped into his head at the time.

  7. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:23 pm

    I won’t be surprised if such an unfortunate accident takes place. Anyone that took a marker from her is a fool anyway and if they don’t get paid, I will utterly no pity for them.

  8. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:24 pm

    The middle east and Balkans are awash with the things and ComBloc .30 ammo. I think that’s the way to bet.

  9. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:26 pm

    I think he did. The sentence structure, however, is awkward.

  10. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:31 pm

    You forgot the tar and feathers.

  11. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:36 pm

    Actually, it isn’t simplistic.

  12. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:37 pm

    By the by: statism is leftist.

  13. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:40 pm

    I know and understand where you are coming from. War, however, like it or not, requires minimizing the directions from which one may be attacked. Islamic Terrorism has bought into Maos principles of warfare to a ‘T’ and the so called moderates are the sea in which the radicals swim. If we are seriously going to fight them. you can not allow any sanctuary. The moderates are the sanctuary.

    I don’t have to like it, but I won’t allow my dislikes to determine whether or not I commit suicide on behalf of my posterity.

  14. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:42 pm

    You need to consider why FedGov has to legally limit immigration back in the 20s before you continue your arguments. Frankly, there is no basis for your argument that doing away with the welfare state will produce the solution you think it will.

  15. NeoWayland
    December 11th, 2015 @ 3:58 pm

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
    — Benjamin Franklin

    The point holds.

    While this administration has done everything it could to plant radical Islam into this country, that’s a completely separate issue. Not all Muslim Americans are terrorists, and it’s wrong and anti-American to proclaim that they are and demand punishment.

    On the other hand, I’m leaning towards beheading the terrorists. And then boiling their bodies and heads with pork marinated with female urine and letting the vultures eat what’s left. Burning or burial is too good for them.

  16. NeoWayland
    December 11th, 2015 @ 4:01 pm

    By the by: statism is also rightist.

    Any means necessary.

  17. Squid Hunt
    December 12th, 2015 @ 7:13 am

    Then why waste your time fighting liberalism? If the welfare state is fine, then there’s no reason to be a conservative. But to answer your question, I believe the largest problem with this country is the breadth and power of government. Why does the governmenet do anything? Your question implies that the motives of the government are always correct.

  18. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 10:02 am

    And your way would never end the war. Your way is suicide.

  19. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 10:04 am

    Look up the term strawman before you proceed any further.

  20. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 10:07 am

    Statism is leftist. Anarchy is on the right. BAMN is also thoroughly on the left.

  21. NeoWayland
    December 12th, 2015 @ 11:02 am

    Things are never ideal.

    It’s up to us to manifest the principles we hold dear and make them work in the world.

    All we’re doing now is perpetuating the war. The neo-cons didn’t want the war to end. The Imperious Leader wants to plant the war permanently in American soil. If we want it to end, that’s what we need to change.

  22. NeoWayland
    December 12th, 2015 @ 11:10 am

    Statism is always about shifting power to the state. Conservatism is rightist.

    “A conservative tends to value economic freedom over personal freedom. Usually this means removing government obstacles to business while advocating a common moral belief system to join people together, even if someone has to sacrifice in the name of that system. In it’s more extreme forms, that can mean dictating the personal behavior (and occasionally beliefs) of individuals through government actions. The bottom line and results take precedence over feelings.”

    Anarchy is something else.

  23. Squid Hunt
    December 12th, 2015 @ 11:38 am

    As I said, which is worse liberalism or Islam? The only weapon Islam has in the west is liberalism. PC is their only tool of infiltration. Welfare justifies empowering the state. The state is protecting Islam from prosecution and exposure. End welfare, end socialism, free society.
    Or spend all your time hating on an ideology and passing laws to stifle it and grow the power of the state at the expense of your own liberties.

  24. Daniel Freeman
    December 12th, 2015 @ 1:54 pm

    They appear to be willing to die on the hill of open borders. I think they’d rather keep the support of the big donors than win, if they have to choose. Although I suppose that’s still a trough.

  25. Art Deco
    December 12th, 2015 @ 4:45 pm

    John Derbyshire is not a populist at all. His book is a mix of biological reductionism and irascible British ridicule. Peter Brimelow is a Canadian (?) quondam newspaper reporter whose stock-in-trade is eclectic literature on immigration restriction (one of his signatures is his retrospective disdain for Wm. F. Buckley, whom he maintains, improbably, was nearly senile in his last years); he’s not a populist, either. The term fits better on Buchanan, but Buchanan’s real signature is an idiosyncratic mix of complaints against modal opinion in the GOP.

  26. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 5:50 pm

    Once more you evidence your grave ignorance. Brimelow is a Brit. who came via Canada. He also writes regularly on other subjects. You show demonstrate you know nothing of Derbyshire, and you don’t let you ignorance get in the way of a good hate. The same on Buchanan.

    This is just more mental masturbation on your part leading you to show contempt for your betters.

  27. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 5:53 pm

    Your view is as utopian as that of Communists, and as likely to work. Cyhrsitians have been doing to for two millenia, and look how far it has gotten us in changing the world.

    What you want will also prolong the war, and also lead to surrender. You offer nothing more than the Neo-Cons do, just in a different way.

  28. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 5:55 pm

    The founders occupied the political center. they were conservatives. Ordered Liberty is what Conservatism stands for. Many of those claiming to be conservatives are not. And, who can blame them when so few understand what it is – and that includes yourself.

  29. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 5:59 pm

    You also still have no understanding of what a strawman is. You also haven’t dealt with the fact that FedGov was forced to limit immigration well before the welfare state came into being.

    Like so many in the political world, you have little understanding of what it means to be a conservative. That is also why “conservatives” have accomplished so little. Simply shutting down the welfare state will not get what you think it will. It would behoove you to look into what history tells us before you start allowing your fingers to fly across your keyboard.

  30. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 6:04 pm

    I doubt they are willing to die on any hill. If they die they can’t keep their snouts in the Federal trough. They’ll cave on whatever they need to cave on to stay in office.

  31. NeoWayland
    December 12th, 2015 @ 6:38 pm

    Cyhrsitians? A big part of the problem with Christians is that there is this bias against letting people make their own choices.

    What I want is for people to stand up for themselves. I don’t want government intervention, I don’t think people should be “protected” from the wrong choice.

    People making their choice and taking responsibility is the only thing that makes a difference in the long run

  32. NeoWayland
    December 12th, 2015 @ 6:53 pm

    The Founders weren’t a monolithic block. You need do nothing except compare the The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers to see that. Or look closely at what happened with the Bank of The United States. Or look at the response to the Whiskey Rebellion. Let’s not forget the Louisiana Purchase.

    As far as me “understanding,” haven’t you “advocated a common moral system to join people together” since you first started replying to my comments? Even if it meant “dictating personal behavior (and occasionally beliefs)?”

    I wrote that ten years ago after spending a couple of decades dealing with some of the best and worst that conservatives AND liberals had to offer. Still true though. Just ask Penn Jillette.

  33. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 8:04 pm

    And a big part of your problem is that you know nothing of Christianity, yet hold forth in your ignorance anyway. And, as usual, you’re off chasing squirrels.

    You’re a utopian.

  34. Quartermaster
    December 12th, 2015 @ 8:06 pm

    The founders were pretty much in agreement. The Anti-Federalists weren’t founders. They were against the constitution of 1787. They were right in most of their predictions, but they weren’t the founders. The founders defined the political center for this country balancing the desire for license (unregulated freedom and anarchy), and statism because man must be governed. That is conservatism.

  35. NeoWayland
    December 12th, 2015 @ 8:21 pm

    No, you misunderstand. Only if it’s deliberate, it’s really not misunderstanding, is it?

    I’m an individualist.

    Now, getting back to the discussion, are you claiming Christians encourage people to make their own choices, even if those aren’t Christian choices?

    That’s not what you shown before.

  36. NeoWayland
    December 12th, 2015 @ 8:24 pm

    The Anti-Federalists weren’t Founders?

    Where do you think the demand for a Bill of Rights came from?

    Adult humans are perfectly capable of governing themselves.

    Or are you about to crash an airplane into a building?

  37. Quartermaster
    December 13th, 2015 @ 2:39 am

    I know what you think you are. I am also going to allow you to chase your own squirrels. Your 4th sentence shows you have paid little attention to what I have said since you started posting your trash on this site. I don’t think that’s intentional. You simply see only what your limited thinking allows you to see.

  38. Quartermaster
    December 13th, 2015 @ 2:41 am

    They were not founders. The demand for the bill of rights did not come solely from the anti-Federalists. History also proves that man, in too many cases, will not govern himself. Even the founders recognized that. Look up what they actually said about government. It will be educational for you.

  39. Squid Hunt
    December 13th, 2015 @ 8:21 am

    Again. Who cares the motive of government? Just because laws are passed for x reason doesn’t mean x is valid. Government should be shaped by the people, the people shouldn’t be shaped by government. If you disagree, then three cheers for bringing loads of muslims in from terrorist nations. It’s the same fundamental principle. Government wants more muslims and less conservative white men.

    If we had no welfare state and open borders, the population would be regulated by the markets, just like anything else. As the economy increased and jobs opened up, people would move in. As things slowed down, people would naturally flow back out. It wouldn’t be immediate, but it would happen.

    Government subsidizing always falsely inflates markets. In this case, the market is populations of people who can now survive with less income thanks to welfare.

  40. NeoWayland
    December 13th, 2015 @ 8:43 am

    And again you have to make it personal.

    You do that when you don’t want to or can’t address the point I’ve made.

    Remember, you’re the one who used Christians in this context.

  41. NeoWayland
    December 13th, 2015 @ 8:49 am

    Of course the Anti-Federalists were Founders. The Founders weren’t just the signers, they were everyone who argued about it, everyone who voted on it, and everyone who accepted it.

    “We the People,” remember?

    That’s the thing. No one person, no one group had all the answers. No one knew exactly what would happen. The system only works when everyone who has a stake also has a say.

    That was the gift of the Founders to future generations. The rest is poetry.

    Free to choose and accept responsibility for the consequences.

  42. NeoWayland
    December 13th, 2015 @ 8:59 am

    Oh, BTW.

    The Massachusetts Compromise.

    Look it up in the history books. Or even on Wikipedia.

    And look at who spoke for the Anti-Federalists. John Hancock and Samuel Adams, two gentlemen who even by your standard are unquestionably Founders.

  43. Quartermaster
    December 13th, 2015 @ 4:29 pm

    Umpires are involved in a Manichean struggle every time the chief sez “play ball.”

  44. Quartermaster
    December 13th, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

    I am aware of the Mass compromise and it’s not relevant to this. The founders were at the Constitutional convention.

  45. Quartermaster
    December 13th, 2015 @ 4:33 pm

    I did as an example.

    Sorry, but not going into your frame. It’s personal to you because of where it hits. I really couldn’t care less how it hits you personally. You have no point. You have only utopianism.

  46. Quartermaster
    December 13th, 2015 @ 4:37 pm

    You still haven’t dealt with the issue. You may not care about the motive of government, but you need to deal with why immigration was limited in the 20s. That reason shows that you have utterly no basis for your argument for open borders.

  47. Squid Hunt
    December 13th, 2015 @ 5:36 pm

    Because government instituted immigration restrictions before welfare my contention that welfare is the only serious sticking point to open borders is invalid. No. Try again.

  48. Art Deco
    December 13th, 2015 @ 6:42 pm

    “His book” means his book of business. And I’ve described him with precision.

    You might come up with a more productive hobby than making nonsense accusations.

  49. Quartermaster
    December 13th, 2015 @ 6:46 pm

    Heh! What a maroon!

    I don’t have to make nonsense accusations. Observations are damning enough.

    Your description of Derbyshire is based on gross ignorance.

  50. NeoWayland
    December 13th, 2015 @ 6:47 pm

    psst

    It doesn’t hit me much at all.

    I just point out that it’s your main method for avoiding the topic.