A trove of emails Trump-backed Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters sent while in college have been made public, revealing he called the US “fascist” and defended conspiracy theories around the September 11 terror attacks.
Why is that odd? You become a Trumpist bcause you see conspiracies everywhere. See QAnon
Not when it comes to elections.... It's much simpler when all your enemies form one single package!
Well it's odd to me because I regarded Dubya and the neocons as 'the enemy' and as disastrously wrong-headed in their policies.
Not when it comes to elections.
You find it odd ………. I find that interesting. Your question can lead, I would bet, to interesting insights and conclusions, but the thing that grabbed my attention was a sense of appreciation for whatever it is about you that drove you to ask. I guess what it implies to me is that someone must be home there somewhere in your head to ask. I get that feeling with a lot of your posts. I don’t have an English word I can think of that describes it. Inquiring mind? Seeker? Open minded? Introspective? Eccentric? Curious? Analytical?, that works a bit but Nope, I can’t find anything that fits just right.Haven't seen this posted on here, might have missed it (though a search produced lots of past idiotic statements by the same guy).
I find it quite odd that Trumpists construct consipracies about the Dubya administration and the Neo-cons. Two different factions of the crazy right, I guess.
Well it's odd to me because I regarded Dubya and the neocons as 'the enemy' and as disastrously wrong-headed in their policies.
To me they _were_ the contemporary instantiation of 'the right'. But now that right has mutated into some other form, and one that is at odds with it's previous incarnation, which still continues to have an independent existence. There are multiple "enemies" now, and they don't necessarily get on with each other (e.g Liz Cheney). It's much simpler when all your enemies form one single package!
Fascists always need multiple "enemies", just in case they exterminate one and to keep their followers scared. Remember in 1984 (the book) they were at war with the East then the West. Hitler, focused on the Jews, but gypsies, the handicapped, intellectuals, politicians and others were also the enemy and were jailed, exterminated or deported.
I think the primary difference between the two strains of right wing thought in America is the old right was primarily concerned with external enemies and the new right is primarily concerned with purging internal enemies.I suppose with Hitler the closest parallel would be the divide between Hitler himself and the Strasserite anti-capitalist strand of Nazism (that he mostly exterminated).
I just find it interesting for some reason, the way the right is every bit as divided as the left - each faction presumably representing slightly different demographic groups, with different self-interests. Seems as if there's a big divide between those focussed on global issues, such as the neo-cons, and those with a primarily domestic focus.
Another manifestation of it is the weird conspiracy theories the far-right constructed around Bush Snr's use of the term 'New World Order'. To me that meant nothing good, being just a euphemism for an intended US imperialist domination of the world for its own benefit, but at the same time the far right seemed to take it as denoting some sinister _liberal_ or even leftist, plan.
I think the primary difference between the two strains of right wing thought in America is the old right was primarily concerned with external enemies and the new right is primarily concerned with purging internal enemies.
I don't think the new right is paleoconservative at all - they are more like a reincarnation/reimagination of the Know Nothing Party. Paleoconservatives wanted limited government, low taxes, low spending, etc. Trumpism is perfectly fine with big government, big spending, etc., so long as it's on the 'right' people. Trump basically jettisoned the highly unpopular policy positions of cutting social security and other government spending and ramped up the anti-immigrant hatred.I guess so. Though confusingly, what you here call 'the old right' would be the neo-cons, while 'the new right' seems to be the resurgence of what was once the old right, i.e. paleoconservatives. All that was old is now new again!
Trumpism seems, at first glance, to have a lot in common with Pat Buchanan's brand of the right.
Yes, this was not a very complex deal or a difficult one to understand. Trump does not have any policy positions that he really cares about with the possible exception of his racism and xenophobia. Because of this Trump made a deal to sign whatever legislation Republicans could get to his desk and appoint anyone they wanted to the courts so long as they allowed him to steal from the treasury and extort foreign governments.Trump's only concern was how he could turn his term in the White House into a goose that laid those golden eggs. Every other policy he pursued was primarily influenced with that intention. He had absolutely no reason to uphold the ideology that the Repub party based their rai·son d'ê·tre on because it would only hamper his chances toward maximizing his primary goal. The party faithful followed the lead Trump's base had established and now the transformation into an organized crime family was complete. Corruption galore was and still is the modus operandi.
The Repub base went all in with Trump's disregard for any and all folkway, more and laws that hindered his insatiable grab for gold and glory because he appeared to be the rebel they wanted that would run amok inside DC, that broke things with wanton abandon causing mayhem and confusion among their despised enemies inside the establishment. Well he didn't disappoint now did he?
I don't think the new right is paleoconservative at all - they are more like a reincarnation/reimagination of the Know Nothing Party. Paleoconservatives wanted limited government, low taxes, low spending, etc. Trumpism is perfectly fine with big government, big spending, etc., so long as it's on the 'right' people. Trump basically jettisoned the highly unpopular policy positions of cutting social security and other government spending and ramped up the anti-immigrant hatred.
Were Paleocons really for 'limited government' and low-taxes and all that? I would have ascribed that more to the libertarian branch of the right. I've always had the impression paleocons were far more focused on being anti-migrant and supporting social-conservatism. Buchanan himself was a conservative Catholic, no? They were also, like Trump, anti-Free-Trade.
As I've said elsewhere I think Trump's only actual policy preferences were using the office to personally enrich himself and nativism/racism and this most closely aligns him with Know-Nothingism.Don't know if Trump counts as a paleocon, though, haven't heard anyone call him that, but he seems far more in tune with that strand than with the neo-cons.
I think paleoconservatives had their last hurrah with GHWB and I would not consider him a libertarian. That being said, GHWB was 30 years ago.
As I've said elsewhere I think Trump's only actual policy preferences were using the office to personally enrich himself and nativism/racism and this most closely aligns him with Know-Nothingism.
Know Nothing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The whole 'naked corruption' thing doesn't really fit in with political parties well but I think his choice to jettison cuts to social security and Medicare that Republicans had campaigned on for a long time was a smart electoral move. Since Trump had no ideological commitment to those policies it was easy to do.
According to the international relations scholar Michael Foley, "paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programs and large-scale demographic change, the decentralization of federal policy, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and non-interventionism in the conduct of American foreign policy"
Historian George Hawley states that although influenced by paleoconservatism, Donald Trump is not a paleoconservative, but rather a right-wing nationalist and populist. Hawley also states that paleoconservatism is today an exhausted force in American politics. Regardless of how Trump himself is categorized, others regard the movement known as Trumpism as supported by if not a rebranding of, paleoconservatism. From this view, the followers of the old right did not fade away so easily and continue to have significant influence in the Republican Party and the entire country.
That’s fair, he does cover quite a lot of that definition.Yeah, I have vaguely heard of the Know Nothings - a long time ago I used to hear them invoked as defining the nature of the entirety of the late 20th century US right (interesting though from that wiki entry, it seems they were far more definied by anti-Catholicism than other forms of bigotry)
But, if we are referring to wikipedia...
Which sounds entirely consistent with Trump, to me.
Though, to be fair it then says
So who knows? I'm aware this is just a discussion about terminology, so can't say I'm that invested in the argument either way, but I'm curious how Trumpery fits into the general evolution of the US right.
That’s fair, he does cover quite a lot of that definition.
Trump most certainly did not favor decentralization of federal power though, which in my opinion is a foundational aspect of paleoconservatism. If anything I think he wanted it concentrated even more under him as seen by his policies to punish state governments that defied him, etc.
I spent a couple of years living in London many moons ago and visited again briefly more recently. The conversation in this thread has reminded my of my outsiders take on your culture. For whatever it might be worth as a comment on you fascination with political definitions, I would personally chalk it up to class consciousness. Your culture, it struck me, was obsessed with social status and one's proper place and identity in society. Class consciousness, I would also call class envy and class snobbery and the idolatry of blood lines, aristocracy, etc. It struck me as hilariously funny because none of you had the one thing that is the mark of true greatness and that's being an American. You simply had no idea in your class fever that a God walked among you converting real dollars into rainbow play money.Something I've heard claimed is that the contemporary "new" right in the US has become quite explicitly disenchanted with neo-liberalism/libertarian economic ideas. They've apparently concluded that economic liberalism leads to social liberalism, and therefore the former should be rejected.
The terminology is confusing, because what used to be called "the new right" in my day was characterised by its intense commitment to economic liberalism above all, in contrast to the 'old right's conservative paternalistic form of collectivism. Now the 'new new right' seems to be rejecting precisely the economic liberalism that was embraced by the old new right.