Patterico's Pontifications

11/5/2019

Two Republican Congressmen Discuss The Future Face of The GOP

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:30 am



[guest post by Dana]

On one hand, because the Republican ticket won the White House, some see that as proof that the Republican Party is doing just fine, thank you very much. But you don’t have to look too hard to see that, clearly there are problems. Real problems.

Two Texas congressmen, Rep. Will Hurd and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, recently discussed what the GOP needs to do in order to remain strong in the future. This in light of six Republican congressmen from Texas having announced that they will not seek re-election (including Hurd). It’s apparent from a few snippets of the interview below, that Hurd and Crenshaw have the same end-goals in mind, but see the getting-there a bit differently.

Hurd, who is the only black Republican in the House, wants to see the Republican Party more closely resemble the nation at large:

“I do believe that if the Republican Party doesn’t start looking like the rest of the country, there won’t be a Republican Party in this country,” Hurd told “Axios on HBO.”

Hurd said he’s talked with at least a dozen black Republicans who want to run for Congress in the last few weeks alone.

More than 1 in 4 members of the House of Representatives is a racial or ethnic minority, but only 10% of that group are Republicans.

Hurd, who won his re-election last year by just over 920 votes, says, “Texas is in play.”

“Texas is a purple state. Just because we don’t have a statewide elected Democrat doesn’t mean Texas is not already purple,” Hurd said. “We should be operating as if it’s purple.”

Crenshaw, on the other hand, doesn’t like what he sees as “identity politics”:

[Crenshaw] is skeptical of the idea of specifically recruiting non-white or younger candidates, but acknowledged that “people do want to hear that message from somebody who they can relate with.”

“I hate engaging in identity politics,” he said. “I just don’t take it as a given that because you’re nonwhite, that we should worry about you voting Democrat.”

“We would definitely like a more diverse candidate list and we’re definitely accomplishing that for the 2020 cycle.”

Crenshaw told “Axios on HBO” several factors are shaping the changes in Texas, including an influx of residents from bluer states, Trump’s non-traditional qualities and a bump in the proportion of younger voters.

“President Trump wasn’t as popular as maybe more traditional Republicans would be in Texas,” he said. “Millennials are overwhelmingly against Trump. I think that has a lot to do with it. I think it’s more of a personality distaste for him.”

What they are entirely in agreement about is that Republicans need to:

… show up, talk to everyone and articulate how conservatism is looking out for the people who don’t look like the rest of their party.

(Side note: That Republicans have an issue with just showing up and going into neighborhoods where they might not normally go and engaging with diverse communities, made me think of that time when an easy, no-brainer decision to just show up was a struggle…)

Anyway, clearly the Republicans need to persuade Americans as to why the GOP is more preferable than the Democratic party. Also, to reach out to different communities doesn’t signify a surrendering to identity politics. The numbers are just what they are: a dominant number of minority Americans have collectively and historically been wed to the Democratic party, to one degree or another. It therefore falls to the GOP to convince those Americans that there is a better alternative. Of course, there is also one significant hurdle to overcome when trying to convince Americans to come to the right side of the aisle… After all, you can say all the great things there are to say about conservatism, but when someone like Trump is at the helm, the task of persuading becomes all the more difficult.

[Ed. Only for the sake of time and debate am I equating the GOP with Conservatism. While I believe there is very little daylight left between the two major parties, I still think the GOP adheres more closely to Conservatism than any other group. In word, at least, if not necessarily in deed.]

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

71 Responses to “Two Republican Congressmen Discuss The Future Face of The GOP”

  1. Good morning again!

    Dana (cb74ca)

  2. The GOP is not a Conservative party, never has been and never will be. However, it has always had a Conservative wing and some years that wing has been in the ascendancy (e.g. Goldwater, Reagan).

    The Democrat party does not currently have a Conservative element and the closest it has come in my lifetime was the Segregationist wing, conservative only in opposing racial change (as a result, “Segregationist” and “Conservative” became synonymous among the Left).

    Kevin M (19357e)

  3. OTOH, I’m not sure that Conservative means all that much in the Age of Whackadoodle Trump. It was already creaky, but when you have a president who is called conservative by the left (mostly as a pejorative) but whose policy initiatives range from radical to centrist to isolationist to protectionist it’s hard to say what the term means any more.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  4. I agree with Kevin. When a Court of Appeals nominee is brought to tears at his Senate confirmation hearing by a false allegation whose only purpose was to bring attention to the “alternative lifestyles” agenda, “conservative” is a meaningless word.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. The GOP needs to attract more minorities. Everything they’ve done before has failed. So what should they do differently? They’ve pandered, supported amnesty and immigration, stayed neutral on affirmative action, and implicitly supported racial set asides and quotes. And they’ve promoted every black they get their hands on to positions of power. Remember the black guy who was the head of the RNC. They would’ve nominated Colin Powell for POTUS, if he’d deigned to run.

    Nothing has worked. Blacks vote 80-90% D just like they’ve done for the last 50 years. Jews vote D 60-70% despite the R’s hysterical support for Israel and condemnation of antisemitism. Hispanics/Asians vote 2-1 D, no matter what.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  6. All the GOPe idiots told us that trump was a racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. (cf: Miss Lindsey, Kasich, and Mittens) and… Trump did – more or less – as well as Blacks, Hispanics, etc. as the previous three nominees.

    The fact is, Conservatives Inc. and GoP establishment don’t have a clue on how to attract minorities to the R party. All their actions/advice has accomplished nothing, and the people Trump are doing better than they ever have.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  7. If Trump is conservative I have absolutely no clue what any of these factions are really about anymore.

    We are way past the point where a balanced budget is considered plausible or worth pursuing, and it’s a crisis we’re going to deal with, and our kids will deal with.

    We have no coherent foreign policy right now, and it appears our nation’s enemies are openly aligning with certain politicians and manipulating our democratic processes.

    Trump’s damage to the GOP is in many ways deserved. They backed off under pressure on so many issues, and became meaningless.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  8. The GOP is a conservative party…but I agree with what Kevin said. I just use a somewhat different termino,ogy.
    What Kevin calls the Conservative wing I calk the libertarian wing. But the other wing, which is noe represented by Trump, has equal right to being called conservative: socially conservative, aggressively naruinalist, authoritarian. Trump and his policies are conservative in that sense.

    Kishnevi (594ffc)

  9. That’s the thing, Kishnevi, conservative doesn’t really mean anything. It’s a label for ‘good’ to some people and ‘evil’ for other people, but does it mean fascist? Does it mean classic liberalism? Does it mean equal before the law, and law and order, or does it mean minimal government control? Does it mean more spending on war and services, or much less government?

    To me ‘conservative’ means balancing the budget, accountability and skepticism for these measly politicians, and equality before the law without any prejudice of any kind. Which is definitely not the Trump supporter definition, but who am I to decide, I guess.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  10. A balanced budget, or at least a BBA, was never worth pursuing since it’s all smoke and mirrors anyway — CA has had a BBA for decades and still spends in deficit.

    What was and is needed is a spending limitation amendment.

    I agree with Dustin that Trump’s foreign “policy”, whatever the frack it is today, is terrible, although I’d argue it only aspires to be a shambles. It’s worse than that.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  11. Trump’s damage to the GOP is in many ways deserved. They backed off under pressure on so many issues, and became meaningless.

    Trump defeated every active wing of the pre-Trump GOP. In detail. They didn’t back off, they recoiled like one would after finding one’s had on a hot stove. The only saving grace for them is that the Democrats are in worse shape after Hilary vs Bernie and Hilary losing to Trump.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  12. #6 —

    You make an assertion — do you have evidence regarding Trump “doing better” with minorities

    Appalled (1a17de)

  13. The republican party ended with Ronaldo Magnus. Its now a flock of how dare you crybabies following Pierre Delecto.

    mg (8cbc69)

  14. Assuming that Trump is the nominee, 2020 will be Trump, in all his glory, versus the neo-Marxist Warren who wants to confiscate the country’s wealth.

    A pretty far cry from Bush v Clinton, or even Obama v Romney.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  15. Assuming Trump is not convicted and wins re-election, does the Republican leadership (in and out of Congress) treat the eight years of Trump as a bad dream, and go back to its core beliefs of smaller government, individual freedom, and internationalism (and give up the Trump grassroot supporters) or has Trump permanently changed the party into a big government populist, isolationist party?

    Rip Murdock (86020d)

  16. The Republican leadership has core beliefs?

    Kishnevi (594ffc)

  17. Rip, name the last GOP president who stood for small government.

    The Trump insurrection was actually about something else — putting the interests of Americans first. Not making China safe for industrialists, not making the US a magnet for immigration, not fighting foreign wars. It was about making sure that a non-academic high-school graduate had job prospects, something neither party had paid attention to for decades.

    Best explanation of Trumpism ever: Charles Murray

    Kevin M (19357e)

  18. #15

    You now have a media, political ecosystem that promote a Trump-like worldview. Tucker Carlson does not go away when Trump does. And the Kochs, who funded the Libertarian mindset, have faded.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  19. Populism and democracy are not opposites. Populism is what happens in a democracy when the best & brightest forget who they are working for. All those unwashed and uneducated folks would MUCH rather be swilling beer and watching TV than engaging in politics.

    But, from time to time, they discover that the people in power are fracking them, and they wake up, get a big stick and whack the bejeezus out of the elites in the hope they can get back to the beer and the telly soon.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  20. Just showing up matters. It matters a lot. We saw how much in the Senate race in Texas last year. O’Rourke campaigned in every county, all 54 of them. Cruz did not. For example, he completely blew off the Rio Grande Valley. Which was odd, because only a few years prior, Cruz had been Captain of the Parade on Independence Day in McAllen. He had support down here, and he just threw it away.

    Perhaps he thought he couldn’t win the majority in deep blue South Texas, didn’t want to waste time and resources, and decided to concentrate on the deep red counties in North Texas, like around Dallas. I don’t think he bothered to campaign in Austin either, but he may have made an appearance in Houston.

    That’s campaigning not to lose. That’s not campaigning to win. And it damn near cost him the election. You can’t just show up in areas where you think you have the best chance of winning and ignore the areas where you think you have the best chance of losing. It’s a state-wide race. Make brief appearances in the counties you have the majority, but you simply have to appear in the counties you don’t, in order to make the case to the minority and the undecided that you are the better alternative to your opponent.

    It’s the difference between winning and losing, decisively. Every vote counts. Granted, Cruz narrowly won, but he also almost lost. To Beto? That should be a warning to Cornyn, who is up for reelection in 2020. Pandering to the Trump base may let you squeak in, but it could also lead you to slaughter.

    It’s all about expanding your base, not limiting yourself to it. That’s a recipe for electoral disaster.

    I believe that all things in life can be compared to football. You don’t get to make the schedule or choose your opponents, and every team wants to win, comes to play. It’s all about game lanning, focus, execution on offense, disruption on defense, and field position on special teams. Maintain or regain possession, sustain drives, score, that’s how you win football games. But if you’re playing for field goals, you’re playing to lose. You’ve got to play for touchdowns, to win.

    Not to quibble with you, Dana, but I wouldn’t in any way associate the Republican party with Conservativism. Not anymore, not today. To me, being a Conservative means wanting to conserve the Constitution. Being a Liberal means wanting the preserve liberty. So I’m a little of both. Freedom (the absence of tyranny) and Liberty (individual rights), that’s what it’s all about.

    The GOP has long lost its way on issues such as limited government. It’s been corrupted by sycophants to power at all cost. That’s not the America I came to know and love.

    Emerson knew the nascent American people had to form their own identity, which is why he wrote Self-Reliance. Thoreau took up that idea, which is why he wrote Walden. It’s also why Whitman wrote Leaves of Grass. These works, among others, illustrate the American Spirit–we’re all on owur own, but we’re all in this together. It’s an ideal that has been lost in recent times. Washington, in his Farewell Address–he stepped down as President, even though the former-colonists wanted to annoint him King–warned the people against three things: hyper-partisanship, excessive debt, and interference in foreign conflicts. Washington’s Farewell Address was the most widely published and most widely read document for over a century, more than the Declaration and the Constitution.

    Since it has been not over the last century, look at us now. Hyper-partisan, deeply in debt, and involved in foreign conflicts all over the world. Go figure.

    Neither the Democratic nor the Republican party represent the people, the American people who have a can-do and let’s-work-together attitude, still do to this day.

    If Republicans can’t wrap their minds around that, they’re doomed. So are Democrats. The people know and realize that this duopoly is tearing the country apart, and they don’t like it, because it is not them.

    I suspect that no one will be happy with the outcome of the impeachment proceedings or the election.

    But that’s life in this hyper-partisan, excessively in debt, interfering in foreign conflict, and even more demanding or extorting foreigners in our elections, government that we have now. Thanks to Trump and his personal lawyer Giuliani.

    None of this will end well. We have lost our identity as Americans, and it will cost us dearly.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  21. It looks to me like Hurd’s premise that the GOP is about a specific set of identity politics is correct but that Crenshaw (whom I like) doesn’t want to acknowledge it.

    I have an honest question for the people here who are saying that the GOP isn’t the party of aggrieved white guys.

    What is it the party of?

    What are the principles that define what it means to be a republican? I used to think it was limited government, free trade, balanced budget, strong national defense, family values, and rule of law. But now I don’t really see much adherence to these as principles. When someone brings up that a current event violates these they’re derided as a globalist or ‘muh principles’ or ‘never trumper’.

    Now I think it’s adherence to the tribal prestige or ‘Republicans’. But it seems like the people who feel like I mean them don’t like that characterization. So it it’s not tribal prestige, what is it?

    Time123 (7cca75)

  22. Breaking-
    Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

    A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

    The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged. …..

    In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

    “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month. ……

    Rip Murdock (86020d)

  23. #21

    It looks to me like Hurd’s premise that the GOP is about a specific set of identity politics is correct but that Crenshaw (whom I like) doesn’t want to acknowledge it.

    I have an honest question for the people here who are saying that the GOP isn’t the party of aggrieved white guys.

    What is it the party of?

    What are the principles that define what it means to be a republican? I used to think it was limited government, free trade, balanced budget, strong national defense, family values, and rule of law. But now I don’t really see much adherence to these as principles. When someone brings up that a current event violates these they’re derided as a globalist or ‘muh principles’ or ‘never trumper’.

    Now I think it’s adherence to the tribal prestige or ‘Republicans’. But it seems like the people who feel like I mean them don’t like that characterization. So it it’s not tribal prestige, what is it?

    Time123 (7cca75) — 11/5/2019 @ 10:23 am

    Right now?

    They’re the Not Democrat party.

    That’s enough for me now…

    But, the one thing I think most “wings” of the GOP party consistently agrees on, is nominating young conservative judges.

    I don’t people really appreciate the impact of this…that is enormously impactful.

    Until the Democratic party reforms and becomes more rational, I’m voting Republicans. Even if I have to hold my nose and puke at the same time.

    It’s a defensive measure as all I see from current crops of Democratic politicians is that they’ed want more onerous controls over our lives.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  24. They’re the Not Democrat party.

    That’s enough for me now…

    Both sides have no idea this is why both sides suck so much.

    Dustin (d42b09)

  25. #12 Trump is doing better – he got elected and McCain and Romney didn’t. Current polls project Trump’s vote percentages to be higher than Bush II in 2004, with minorities.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  26. Bush-II in his autobiography claims the one the proudest moments of his life came when he got “The highest percentage of black votes ever for an R, in a Texas Governor Race” So how many black Texan votes did Bush get in 1998? 60%? 50%? 40%? Nope. he got 27%! Yep, Bush-II was incredibly proud that ONLY 73% of blacks voted against him in 1998.

    BTW, How many African-American Votes did bush-II get in 2004? Answer: 11%. However, this was an improvement over the 9% he got in 2000! And this character was always trumpeting how the R Party had to reach out to Blacks.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  27. Conservative economic libertarianism is dead! Republican party now conservative populist. Trump in 2016 proved that g.o.p. was a hollow shell with wealthy free traders destroying their own voters with free trade. Jeb bush and the other free trade rats and rich peoples money ;but trump had the voters. The wealthy free traders could no longer buy the g.o.p. presidential nomination. Don’t let the door hit you as the republican party runs you out. Go smoke some dope with gary johnson and the free trade libertarian party.

    asset (214ccf)

  28. Lightweights.

    Cagney & Lacey- babes
    Starsky & Hutch- car
    Rizzoli & Isles- attitude
    Simon & Simon- brothers
    Hurd & Crenshaw- eyepatch

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  29. ”I have an honest question for the people here who are saying that the GOP isn’t the party of aggrieved white guys.
    What is it the party of?”
    Time123 (7cca75) — 11/5/2019 @ 10:23 am

    It probably shouldn’t be a party that looks at something like, say, the Constitution and dismisses it something written by aggrieved white guys. We already have one party that does that.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  30. There you go again, dogging anything Texan. But Isles (Sasha Alexander) for me any day.

    urbanleftbehind (1d7af7)

  31. rcocean,

    Trump got 8% of the black vote in 2016. That is better than McCain and Romney but not as good as Bush II. Maybe he will do better in 2020, but it is premature to note that Trump has solved that problem.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  32. It was about making sure that a non-academic high-school graduate had job prospects, something neither party had paid attention to for decades.

    Sorry, but this is buying into an utterly false narrative.

    Unemployment was 5% when Trump was elected; for white high-school graduates, even lower.

    If “job prospects” means earning an upper middle-class income for doing work that robots and illiterate third-world peasants can do, then good luck with that.

    People need to take responsibility for their lives, and livelihoods, and acquire skills that are in demand.

    “To each according to their needs” is socialism.

    Dave (8f119a)

  33. Trump got 8% of the black vote in 2016. That is better than McCain and Romney but not as good as Bush II.

    McCain and Romney were running against a black opponent…

    Dave (8f119a)

  34. ’If “job prospects” means earning an upper middle-class income for doing work that robots and illiterate third-world peasants can do, then good luck with that.’
    Dave (8f119a) — 11/5/2019 @ 12:59 pm

    Securing the robot and illiterate third-world peasant vote will be key.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  35. Securing the robot and illiterate third-world peasant vote will be key.

    Or, if you want to actually help people, encouraging them to do the things that will improve their lives, rather than promising the impossible to con them into voting for you.

    Dave (8f119a)

  36. If protectionism worked, North Korea’s workers would be the most prosperous on the planet.

    Dave (8f119a)

  37. McCain and Romney were running against a black opponent…

    And they lost. They’re both losers. Look at the Hispanic votes they got. Mr. Born in Mexico and Mr. Amnesty did poorly.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  38. Hispanic Vote:

    Trump 28%
    Romney 27%
    McCain 31%

    rcocean (1a839e)

  39. Hispanic Vote — Bush II (2004) — 35-37%

    Appalled (1a17de)

  40. #9 You’re right about “conservatism” meaning nothing. George Will is now claiming he’s “Conservative” because he has a “Conservative TEMPERAMENT”. Other never-trumpers are claiming its only a “Philosophy” or a “Outlook on Life” LOL. So, A conservative can vote for a big government socialist who hates America because they have “conservative family values and love their wives”. It reminds me of the NYT in the late 1980’s talking about Gorbachev taking on the “Conservative Communists” in the Kremlin.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  41. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 11/5/2019 @ 9:49 am
    Dammit, GG. You are asking a lot of this old man in writing that wall-o-paragraphs – but I read it. Now get off of my lawn!

    felipe (023cc9)

  42. @25-

    #12 Trump is doing better – he got elected and McCain and Romney didn’t. Current polls project Trump’s vote percentages to be higher than Bush II in 2004, with minorities.

    Care to provide a link?

    Rip Murdock (86020d)

  43. If Trump doesnt hit those milestones, DeSantis might in 2024:
    http://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1189894916639514624?s=20

    urbanleftbehind (1d7af7)

  44. Dave,

    That Charles Murray article I linked to in that comment has quite different numbers.

    Here’s a graph from the same article

    https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PT-AQ007A_TRUMP_16U_20160212095408.jpg

    stating:

    For white working-class men in their 30s and 40s—what should be the prime decades for working and raising a family—participation in the labor force dropped from 96% in 1968 to 79% in 2015. Over that same period, the portion of these men who were married dropped from 86% to 52%. (The numbers for nonwhite working-class males show declines as well, though not as steep and not as continuous.)

    And the elite dismissed them as “angry white men.” Then someone ran for office who didn’t treat them with condescension and ridicule…

    Kevin M (19357e)

  45. I think you still confuse government unemployment numbers with “people not employed.”

    Kevin M (19357e)

  46. ’If “job prospects” means earning an upper middle-class income for doing work that robots and illiterate third-world peasants can do, then good luck with that.’

    If capitalists think that it’s a good idea to replace voters with robots, they had either better get rid of voting or get rid of their idiot economists.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  47. Dave, you are talking just like the guys that Charles Murray refers to as “those who forgot they were Americans.” Making a buck by hollowing out the country that supports you making a buck will end badly.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  48. For white working-class men in their 30s and 40s—what should be the prime decades for working and raising a family—participation in the labor force dropped from 96% in 1968 to 79% in 2015.

    Work is available to anyone who wants it. People walk across thousands of miles of desert, risking all manner of dangers, to do work that people in this country won’t do.

    If you want better work, for better pay, you have to make yourself a better, more valuable worker. It’s the way it’s always been.

    If capitalists think that it’s a good idea to replace voters with robots, they had either better get rid of voting or get rid of their idiot economists.

    Karl Marx agreed with you! That is not meant as a cheap shot. You are literally making the exact same argument he made.

    The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered forms, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation, distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind.

    Capitalists have been replacing human labor with machines for centuries. And during those centuries the standard of living across the world has risen exponentially – with the largest gains in those countries that embraced innovation and mechanization most enthusiastically and completely.

    Trump’s moronic protectionist policies will impoverish almost everyone just to line the pockets of a handful of favored special interests with corporate welfare. All they will do is export our prosperity to other countries who are better able to compete.

    Dave (8f119a)

  49. The standard of living across the world coincides with the rise of workers’ rights not the rise of the machines. The bosses brought in the machines to increase the productivity of the workers and better recoup the wages they were paying them. For the same wage, a worker with a power drill could drill ten times as many holes in a mine as a worker with a hammer and a singlejack.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. The standard of living across the world coincides with the rise of workers’ rights not the rise of the machines.

    U funny

    Dave (8f119a)

  51. And with the collapse of colonialism.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. People have been suggesting that the future is idle people and machine workers since the 1940’s (at least). Hasn’t happened yet, and if it seems likely the 4000% tax on machine workers will put an end to it.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  53. @45 You understand that that is exactly the reason that many minority voters vote for Democrats, right? The Republican party looks at black neighborhoods and says, “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Oh, and get married more.” The Dems make vague motions at trying to find solutions, so they vote for Dems.

    Nic (896fdf)

  54. People have been suggesting that the future is idle people and machine workers since the 1940’s

    I wasn’t suggesting the future was “idle people”. As machines (and illiterate third world peasants) do more menial jobs involving physical labor, educated people can and should do higher paying jobs involving mental effort that is beyond what a machine/peasant is capable of.

    Machines can also raise the productivity (and wages) of workers who use them. A machinist who can operate a computerized lathe driven by a CAD system will earn a higher wage than an artisan using 20th century technology.

    Dave (8f119a)

  55. OT…Mitchie might have shived Bevin.

    urbanleftbehind (1d7af7)

  56. Dave, you are talking just like the guys that Charles Murray refers to as “those who forgot they were Americans.” Making a buck by hollowing out the country that supports you making a buck will end badly.

    Kevin M (19357e) — 11/5/2019 @ 3:10 pm

    If the GOP is now the party of labor laws that support low skilled workers, I’m sure not seeing in the policy, or even the rhetoric on an issue by issue basis. The UAW just went on strike for 30+ days at GM. One of the main sticking points vehicle assembly in NA. I don’t recall anything from the GOP on this. From a policy standpoint its the same as it’s always been. Cut taxes on the top and on capital and it’ll grow the economy and flow to the worker.

    Time123 (af99e9)

  57. @41
    RC, I get that you’re passionate about this, but I’m still not clear on what you think the defining principles of a conservative are. Can you clarify?

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  58. Cut taxes on the top and on capital and it’ll grow the economy and flow to the worker.

    How?

    nk (dbc370)

  59. Show me the stream.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. Rip Murdock @22. He discussed this…September 1. Not earlier.

    Sammy Finkelman (2f3e32)

  61. @43 – NO

    rcocean (1a839e)

  62. Trump’s moronic protectionist policies will impoverish almost everyone just to line the pockets of a handful of favored special interests with corporate welfare.

    Yeah, somebody is an economic moron, and it isn’t Trump. The idea that negotiating better trade deals with foreign countries is “going to impoverish everyone” is simply gibberish. It denotes an ignorance of the amount of foreign Trade we have, the type of goods, and who benefits from it. Next time, use the Democrat tactic, just scream “Its a trade war!!, we’re all going to DIE!!!”

    rcocean (1a839e)

  63. @58 Conservatism is respect for religion, love of country, and support for family and tradition. The British define it as “God, King, and Country”. The defining principle is NOT “make a buck – anyway you can” or “Big Business uber alles” or “Invade the world, invite the world, and free Trade”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  64. Dave, #55, what do you do with the 30 or 40% who don’t learn well from books? Do you think every American should go to (or would benefit from) college? As an engineer, I plead with you not to make everyone an engineer. Or a lawyer.

    This is a wonderful example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where an individual employer may benefit, on the margin, from automating some jobs. But there are externalities for the economy, for society and even for his customer base. The end result — tossing a large portion of the domestic workforce onto the dole, um, Basic, um, Public Assistance, Guaranteed Annual Income, or whatever euphemism you want, is not a solution. It’s a cop-out.

    And it won’t work. Either they will go to the polls and make damn sure that you start hiring them back (“Trump” being a harbinger) or they will go the other way and start voting themselves bigger checks. Both directions are bad.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  65. The classic story is Jack Williamson’s “With Folded Hands” (1947).

    Kevin M (19357e)

  66. @64 So you elected a twice divorced game show host who has defrauded multiple contractors, has a very flexible idea of legality, doesn’t know anything about the constitution, has never read the bible, and is up to his eyeballs in hock to E. European oligarchs. And will make a buck any way he can and considers his personal big business uber alles and is selling the services of our military to the Saudis. Yep, that makes sense. Hope the judges are worth it.

    Nic (896fdf)

  67. Kentucky just elected a black Republican as AG, but may have elected a Democrat to the governor’s chair (Bevin has not conceded so far).

    Kishnevi (7fbd73)

  68. Kentucky just elected a black Republican as AG, but may have elected a Democrat to the governor’s chair (Bevin has not conceded so far).

    Actually, the Republican’s swept all statewide offices here…except for governor. Part of the problem is Bevin is a tool, another is that he’s an A-hole, AND he ran on Trump, literally every ad he ran talked all about Trump and not about what he accomplished, and the R’s in the state don’t like him. So he had people splitting tickets just on him, and ginned up greater turnout for Dems, add all of that up, and he performed 5-15% points behind the other R’s in the state, but margins were down, turnout for our odd state wide elections were up, to only a pitiful 38%, it may end up at 40%, yeah.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  69. Dave, #55, what do you do with the 30 or 40% who don’t learn well from books? Do you think every American should go to (or would benefit from) college? As an engineer, I plead with you not to make everyone an engineer. Or a lawyer.

    It is the responsibility of anyone who wants a good wage to learn a skill that commands that wage. Going to college is one way. Serving in the military is another way. Taking an entry level job and working your way up is a third way. Starting your own business to monetize *something* you can do well is a fourth way (and the gig/on-demand economy has made this easier than its ever been).

    But promising people they can do a Mexican’s job and expect an American’s pay-check is just lying to con them out of their vote.

    This is a wonderful example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where an individual employer may benefit, on the margin, from automating some jobs. But there are externalities for the economy, for society and even for his customer base. The end result — tossing a large portion of the domestic workforce onto the dole, um, Basic, um, Public Assistance, Guaranteed Annual Income, or whatever euphemism you want, is not a solution. It’s a cop-out.

    No it’s not, it’s a myth. Unemployment is 4%. Work is available to anyone who wants it.

    Illiterate third world peasants walk across a thousand miles of desert to get here, and they find jobs.

    Workers will be paid according to the value added by their labor. That is what is going to happen, regardless of what you, me, or any politician says. It’s a natural law only slightly less immutable than gravity. The only alternatives involve making everyone poorer, and are worse.

    Dave (8f119a)

  70. @64, RC, thank you for answering. “God, King & Country” makes sense and I think i get what you’re saying.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5124 secs.