A traditional NR conservative, Matthew Continetti, has written a new book on the last hundred years of American conservatism. YMMV, but after watching the video, your commentary is invited.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-the-gop-has-a-history-of-attracting-populist-views
Filed under: Economy |
All Things in Moderation 
The interview and his book are really about the conservative movement and the historic division between its intellectual base and its populist base.
PBS’ titling of it on the web site is a bit misleading. This is not about the Republican Party.
I thought the actual interview was interesting, and I want to read the book.
LikeLike
Interview with him by Ezra Klein in the NYT:
LikeLike
The interviewer’s introduction of the premise that “really dangerous” ideas like “white supremacy” are “finding their way more into the mainstream” of the conservative movement are nothing but nonsense progressive/Democratic talking points. The fact that Continetti didn’t dismiss the question as so much nonsense, and even went so far as to suggest that Conservative objections to the idea are driven by a “tribalism” that mindlessly dismisses them simply because they come from liberals, substantially discredits him in my view. (Although, given that Continetti is married to Bill Kristol’s daughter, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.)
Racism is significantly more a feature of the modern progressive movement than it is of the modern conservative movement, and any conservative worth the name would have pointed it out.
LikeLike
Agreed. I did not finish the video (work interfered) but while tribalism is always an issue in politics, sometimes you take a position just because it’s true.
The left is overtly racist. Fringes on the right are racist-y. You find them in groups on the Internet because they have almost no political power. They don’t get elected on racism. Republican arguments these days are primarily about class whereas the Democrats are hyper focused on race.
LikeLike
Thanks for the new thread Mark!
LikeLike
This piece is unintentionally revealing and hilarious.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fiona-hill-says-putin-got-202020727.html
This is the Blob’s best and brightest.
LikeLike
Uh.
Putin often became frustrated with Trump over his lack of knowledge on big issues, Fiona Hill said.
“He had to keep explaining things, and Putin doesn’t like to do that,” Hill said.
Hill said this factored into Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine during the Biden administration.
Because Trump had to have stuff re-explained to him, supposedly, Putin decided to invade Ukraine during the Biden administration. What?
The article goes–trying to make this a negative for Trump, by saying it was because Trump was stupid and didn’t know things–to say that Putin invaded under Biden rather than Trump because he thought Biden would roll-over for him, where Trump would not.
And this is a negative. And means Trump caused the invasion somehow.
LikeLike
Do people read that and say, “that makes sense.” ? Or do they know it’s bullshit a la – they lie, we know they lie, they know we know they lie and yet they keep lying, type of situation?
LikeLike
Lol
LikeLike
The people running the country, generally speaking, are not smart.
Given that, you know, she’s in the government she should be familiar with how the energy markets work and how much the regulatory framework already controls pricing.
But this whole magic wand fantasy is . . . gonna end poorly. Or in the very best case accomplish nothing at all. But if the government could just make things cheaper by ordering it, and then it happens–like magic–I think they’d all have been doing it forever. They’ve tried in the past and it doesn’t work as it turns out.
Also–and it’s not a case the right makes near enough–gouging is good when items are in demand because it modulates supply, prioritizes supply, and prevents hoarding. And the solution to “gouging” is to increase supply. In the energy market, at least increase the expectation of supply by greenlighting pipelines, offshort drilling, more leases, etc.
And the one Big Government federalization that could potentially be useful to prevent gouging, so-called, in certain situation would be federalizing gas formulations so national there was only one formulation and refineries didn’t have to produce different formulations for different regions, saving both time and making the allocation of gas to where it was most needed easier. But that big government overreach they won’t do.
LikeLike
The bill should be called the “Let’s Bring Back Gas Lines” bill. Because that’s what’s going to happen if they try price controls, just like in the 1970’s.
LikeLike
Climate Action 100 https://www.climateaction100.org/
A consortium of investors dedicated to reducing climate change by denying financing to energy companies.
There is your culprit.
LikeLike