This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Populism vs Conservatism vs Libertarianism


 GuyFaulkes Writes: 

   

                                                                                                                       Some time back, a Republican posted on this blog that Trump's candidacy was going to result in a massive defeat for the Republican party and set it back for fifty years as per the Goldwater example he used. As it turned out those of us that felt the people of this country wanted a choice and not the same solutions to the same problems that have not worked for decades were correct. 

For this country to recover from the accumulative damage that has been done to it, many painful measures will have to be taken. For instance, the illegal immigration problem will have to be solved. A work esthetic is going to have to replace the gimme gimme esthetic that liberals of both parties established in order to by votes. The cost of health care will have to be addressed and lessened through competition among providers. Over restrictive regulations will need to be eliminated and government agencies will have to be reduced in size or eliminated. Taxes will have to be reduced and investment in business to create jobs and the economy. The social security problem will have to be addressed as there is a moral obligation to provide for those forced to participate in it for their entire working lives. Individual civil rights such as those confirmed in the Bill of Rights will need constant protection. Then there are socially moral issues such as abortion that will come into play.

I would like to see if we could have an adult discussions about the result that will come about when Trump tries to address some of them. Will the result be that the "progressives" will be able to overcome reform and return to the same old same old or will those that actually produce be able to hold the course? It took decades to reduce the country to its present condition. How long, if it can ever be done, will it take to make it recover? Is this a chance for recovery or is it a bump in the road on the path to having to come back out of the ashes? Will people be willing to make the needed sacrifices or will it have to be forced on them? After all, the direction we were headed in was doomed to fail so change would have eventually have occurred in any case. Do enough people realize this fact?

If my liberal friends respond with the same ideology they always use, please tell me why it will work now after failing for years.

Is Rico finally going to be able to see the conservatives "DO SOMETHING"?

13 comments:

Sarkazein said...

It wasn't THIS Republican who said Trump would set the Party back 50 years. I made one distraught prediction on Election Day considering all the Democrat voter fraud, the MSM, and the controversial personality that is Donald Trump. The Democrats cheated a lot, but not enough. In the Bush election it was South Florida's ballot stuffing. This time it was felons in Virginia and the illegals nationwide, with Obama's blessing, joining the dead nationwide showing a false popular vote.
One voter fraud organization says 3,000,000 illegals voted.

Wolf's Head said...

Healing this country can be faster now that a major tumor has been excised from the body politic. (I.e. the Klintons)

Having fought the Klintons for 24 years we now need to finish off the establishment that was their co-conspirators and enablers.

By that I mean the republicans and the bureaucrats.

Congress is where our next battle lays. With help from the establishment propaganda arm the main stream press it will be a hard slog.

I firmly believed that if Klinton was elected we would be in a hot civil war instead of the Cold War we have fought since Reagan against the statists. We now have a brief reprieve to try and set this country back on it's rightful coarse of personal freedom and prosperity.

I know that it is possible, but it will require us to ride Congress like a 5 dollar whore to get it done.

Sarkazein said...

EEEHA!!

Anonymous said...

Sark, I know you did not make the statement because of conversations you and I have had concerning Goldwater in the past. It does not matter who it was because it was an honest opinion. This person actually believed not continuing with the establishment party line would result in a major defeat for the Republican party.

This is the major problem facing this country. The public and many politicians that should know better have been conditioned to believe in the nanny state. Both parties proposed these kinds of actions because they felt that it was the path to victory with themselves holding the reins of the government. In the long run party did not matter.

In the end, the conflict is between what I call a conservative (someone that believes in small government, personal freedom and personal responsibility) and a liberal ( a person that looks upon the government as mommy and daddy and needs them to care for him, along with the power brokers that want to be mommy and daddy.)

Until the Trump revolution changes things (if it does) dejure party ideology is meaningless because defacto party policies are identical.

Where do you think Trump's initial focus should be placed? I agree with the Wolf in that he is going to have to immediately deal with the establishment portion of the Republican party or they will double team with the Democrats preventing him from being able to accomplish anything.

guy faulkes said...

I hit the wrong button. Guy Faulkes posted the preceding statement.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- More than the "establishment" wanting to "continue the establishment Party line", many just didn't like Donald Trump and his actions in the primary. Not once did I hear any Republican say- "he's just too danged Conservative for me!"
In fact, almost all of President-Elect Trump's cures for what ails America he says requires government action except deregulation. It turns out it required someone with the anti-manners and brashness candidate Trump showed to get enough people excited to get out and vote. The "establishment" didn't like his persona. Since the Democrats have gone full fledged criminal, perhaps only someone like President-Elect Trump is required. The "establishment" types are still gentlemen/ladies and in seriously weighty positions and really didn't know how to handle Mr Trump's persona. IMHO

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- If the "establishment" Republicans team up with Democrats to defeat a President Trump's agenda, I will join you in a real revolution.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, thank you for your insightful comments. I can see your chain of logic and even partially agree with some of it. I apologize for not returning your post yesterday, but I did not have the time.

I must disagree that you did not hear anyone make the comment "he's just to conservative for me" , at least in part. This is what some of those that issued stated that they would not support him meant. Most meant they did not want him rocking the boat. A few did not know how to respond to him, as you indicated.

I do not contend that the Establishment types are not gentlemen and ladies. However they are politicians and play a rough game. Not all gentlemen and ladies agree on what is an unacceptable code of conduct when it comes to their careers. I believe that most are true believers in the Republican party which is not the same ting as being a true believer in conservatism. Some of them are as "progressive" as any Democrat.

I must disagree with the voter results being due to Trump's conduct being the major reason for the turnout. It was to some extent, but he behaved the same way previously and got nowhere. The turnout and the results were due to people being tired of big government and the nanny state, as Blogger has indicated elsewhere. My question is what the reaction will be when it strikes home that everyone will lose something beneficial to them personally, but that is none of the governments business. As I said before, we have been conditioned by liberals to dine at the public teat for years in order to buy them votes.

If you have been as vocal and as involved with the gun issue as I think you have, then those of us such as you, me, the Wolf, and Rico will probably get a knock at the door and a visit fro, the government before a revolution over guns progresses very far. These visits may be what spark the revolution. Thinking we are in a federal data base will be considered paranoid by some, but that does not mean it is not true. It means some people are naive. We will not be factors other than as examples of what could happen to you.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- Some don't want the boat rocked because they fear everyone on board will drown. But I am just glad we are not debating what color pants suit Hillary will wear at her inauguration. I had always wanted a libertarian revolt in the Republican Party but no one appeared. Then Cruz, a pure Conservative, entered the picture and went nose to nose with not only the Democrat leadership but the old guard Republican leadership also. He did it with brilliance, guts, and like The Gentleman from Texas that he is, but the Republican primary voters wanted more flamboyancy. On getting out the vote, I believe it was the same flamboyancy Trump said brought in record viewership to the debates and his rallies combined with the political hatred of Hillary has to have helped the outcome. I believe spite did win out, which I believe is what you are talking about where people are just sick of what the politicians say and how they allowed the government to metastasize. One of my fears was Mr Trumps's support for Shummer who brought us the NICS which I think is the database that will be used for an attempt at gun confiscation.
I am so glad you, Blogger, Wolf'sHead, and JohnnyRico and Ted Nugent were right. I feel better about being wrong than I would have about being right is this case... that's for sure.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, Cruz was my first choice also. I believe Rico indicated the same thing. However, you may be correct in the thought that Trump's antics helped him win. Cruz may have had a more difficult time if he had won the primary. I dd believe he would have won the general because people have awakened to the false promise of liberalism. I have some relations than are such yellow dog Democrats that they glow in the dark, but they voted for Trump because pf the situation that the country is in.

Hilary must really hate Obsms. He beat her twice. Once in a primary and once in the general due to his record she had to defend.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- I had commented I would have to hold my nose and my lunch when I stood next to the voting booth. Turns out I didn't have to do either.
I am still curious and will probably never know what deal was made between Hillary and Obama for her to support his legacy and him to support her candidacy. I wonder how their relationship is now. Will he pardon Hillary & Company and himself?
Another great thing to come of this election is the probable pardon of General Petraeus.

At my house this Thanksgiving, I will set up a safe space with several boxes of tissues, a few sets of ear defenders, a selfie stick, and some to-go boxes.

Johnny Rico said...

Guy and Sark,

We all thought Cruz was the top candidate. He was. He did in fact do what no one had done before him - take on the establishment and liberals at the same time. Cruz was unable to master the 5 second sound bite though which happened by accident. Trump didn't know he'd mastered the 5 second sound bite either until he started getting favorable results.

Trump's amazing win, was certainly one for the ages. I have some hope now. I didn't have hope 2 weeks ago. The Supreme Court may now be restored conservative. Especially if that liberal socialist sheep of a witch Ginsburg retires or passes on. At the very least, we've been gifted a 4 year reprieve from which we can prepare. At the best, we get 8 years to push the liberal socialist sheep into their slime holes.

At any rate, it's fulfilling to see liberals in meltdown mode. Doesn't get any better than this.

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

JohnnyRico- You are right on, and I have gone from doing chin ups on the curb to being excited about the future.