Ted Cruz: Future of conservatism is populist and libertarian

[Bigun]

-------------------------------
Libertarianism was born as a form of left-wing politics and promoted by it's
missionaries/preachers such as Joseph DeJacque, Pierre Proudhon and Sebastian Faure'.

BS!  You have NO idea what you are talking about here.

The Libertarian Party of the United States was formed in Colorado Springs in the home of Luke Zell by a group of individuals led by David Nolan on December 11, 1971, after several months of debate among members of the Committee to Form a Libertarian Party, founded July 17.

The formation was prompted in part by price controls and the end of the Gold Standard implemented by President Richard Nixon. The Libertarian Party viewed the dominant Republican and Democratic parties as having diverged from what they viewed as the libertarian principles of the American Founding Fathers. This group included John Hospers, Edward Crane, Manuel Klausner, Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, D Frank Robinson, Theodora (Tonie) Nathan, and Jim Dean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

[libertybele]

Cruz explains his comment and after the comments in here, I had to go back and rethink the definition of populism and libertarian. I think we can all agree that protecting liberty IS the foundation of our country as he states.

"I think properly understood, those concepts are complementary, and they're not antagonistic. So I am a conservative, an unabashed conservative. I'm also a populist. I am deeply a populist," Cruz began. "And I also have deep libertarian principles. Look, if you're protecting liberty, that is the foundation of our country. That is the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When it comes to populism, I think the most fundamental and important shifts in the last decade in politics is that Republicans have become the party of the working class."

[Bigun]

Cruz explains his comment and after the comments in here, I had to go back and rethink the definition of populism and libertarian. I think we can all agree that protecting liberty IS the foundation of our country as he states.

"I think properly understood, those concepts are complementary, and they're not antagonistic. So I am a conservative, an unabashed conservative. I'm also a populist. I am deeply a populist," Cruz began. "And I also have deep libertarian principles. Look, if you're protecting liberty, that is the foundation of our country. That is the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When it comes to populism, I think the most fundamental and important shifts in the last decade in politics is that Republicans have become the party of the working class."

 

[truth_seeker]

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[Idiot]

Gotta get past this election first. This one night be a nation ender.

Quote of the day!

[Absalom]

BS!  You have NO idea what you are talking about here.
The Libertarian Party of the United States was formed in Colorado Springs in the home of Luke Zell by a group of individuals led by David Nolan on December 11, 1971, after several months of debate among members of the Committee to Form a Libertarian Party, founded July 17.
The formation was prompted in part by price controls and the end of the Gold Standard implemented by President Richard Nixon. The Libertarian Party viewed the dominant Republican and Democratic parties as having diverged from what they viewed as the libertarian principles of the American Founding Fathers. This group included John Hospers, Edward Crane, Manuel Klausner, Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, D Frank Robinson, Theodora (Tonie) Nathan, and Jim Dean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

---------------------
Most emphatically, I have a full grasp of what I'm talking about!!!
The title of the post was "The future of conservatism is populist and libertarian / Cruz!"
He did NOT time constrain these political labels to the USA.
Conservatism existed in Sumer some 5,000 years ago, Democracy in Athens 5 centuries
before Christ and Libertarianisn during the French Enlightenment which was derived from
the cognate LIBERTE'; their revolutionary slogan.
Reality is obvious: History did not begin nor will it end w/the United States!!!

[roamer_1]

Cruz explains his comment and after the comments in here, I had to go back and rethink the definition of populism and libertarian. I think we can all agree that protecting liberty IS the foundation of our country as he states.

"I think properly understood, those concepts are complementary, and they're not antagonistic. So I am a conservative, an unabashed conservative. I'm also a populist. I am deeply a populist," Cruz began. "And I also have deep libertarian principles. Look, if you're protecting liberty, that is the foundation of our country. That is the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When it comes to populism, I think the most fundamental and important shifts in the last decade in politics is that Republicans have become the party of the working class."

The poop spewing out of that boy's face, I doubt I can vote for him anymore.
Enjoy your Worker's Party...

[catfish1957]

The poop spewing out of that boy's face, I doubt I can vote for him anymore.
Enjoy your Worker's Party...

I got to reinterate my first comment.  Any talk of shifts in political philosphies on our side that doesn't include ANY mention of fiscal restraint is a "no show" for me.

[roamer_1]

I got to reinterate my first comment.  Any talk of shifts in political philosphies on our side that doesn't include ANY mention of fiscal restraint is a "no show" for me.

The whole thing is being re-imaged... And it is scurrilous. And THAT is Tumpy's legacy.

[corbe]

@Absalom

[libertybele]

The poop spewing out of that boy's face, I doubt I can vote for him anymore.
Enjoy your Worker's Party...

'm not quite sure of your reasoning here;  he is absolutely correct; protecting liberty, IS the foundation of our country; government doesn't have the right nor the authority to limit freedom and the Rule of Law; our Constitution applies:

Limited government
Consent of the governed  ("We the People")
Due process
Equality
Federalism
Freedom of religion
Separation of powers

[catfish1957]

'm not quite sure of your reasoning here;  he is absolutely correct; protecting liberty, IS the foundation of our country; government doesn't have the right nor the authority to limit freedom and the Rule of Law; our Constitution applies:

Limited government
Consent of the governed  ("We the People")
Due process
Equality
Federalism
Freedom of religion
Separation of powers

economic restraint?, entitlement reduction?  Wanted to add few added to your list.  And again these are part of what was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.  AND missing from Cruz' new politico manifesto.

[jmyrlefuller]

What future? We threw that out four months ago.

[libertybele]

economic restraint?, entitlement reduction?  Wanted to add few added to your list.  And again these are part of what was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.  AND missing from Cruz' new politico manifesto.

Again, I don't think that there is any room for argument that protecting our liberty is the foundation of our country -- I simply listed some of those freedoms, obviously they are spelled out more in depth by the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

[catfish1957]

Again, I don't think that there is any room for argument that protecting our liberty is the foundation of our country -- I simply listed some of those freedoms, obviously they are spelled out more in depth by the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

If fedzilla debt brings us down to our knees, I don't think there is going to be much left to defend those rights against the socialist onslaught.
And again, I sure don't disagree with your premise, but in a resultant dystopian economic wasteland, the constituition might be one of the least of our worries. 

That is why Cruz' seemingly strange direction of ignoring the economic aspects of political direction, was perplexing.
 

[roamer_1]

'm not quite sure of your reasoning here;  he is absolutely correct; protecting liberty, IS the foundation of our country; government doesn't have the right nor the authority to limit freedom and the Rule of Law; our Constitution applies:

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, government DOES have the right to limit freedoms. That is what government *DOES*. Every law is a limitation on freedom, and that is what law is *FOR*. What you necessarily need to mean is that our limited form of government protects liberty by restricting and distributing the jurisdictions of government, pitting the various forms against themselves... A built-in dysfunction designed to tie the government's hands, and provide the various sandboxes of the states respectively as a means test toward any further government, to prove it's encroachments as a benefit or not - But government is always an encroachment upon liberty...

That is a PARAMOUNT principle of Conservatism - That government is NOT your friend, and is always a threat to liberty (till Shiloh come). Populism is the ~exact opposite~ of that necessary paranoia.

[roamer_1]

economic restraint?, entitlement reduction?  Wanted to add few added to your list.  And again these are part of what was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.  AND missing from Cruz' new politico manifesto.

THAT is a fact.

[libertybele]

If fedzilla debt brings us down to our knees, I don't think there is going to be much left to defend those rights against the socialist onslaught.
And again, I sure don't disagree with your premise, but in a resultant dystopian economic wasteland, the constituition might be one of the least of our worries. 

That is why Cruz' seemingly strange direction of ignoring the economic aspects of political direction, was perplexing.

From "Politico" back in April--

"Relief can only go so far," said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). "Our deficit this year is projected to swell to nearly $4 trillion, an unprecedented level that we’re borrowing from the generations to come. We cannot simply spend our way out of this crisis.”

Perhaps, I misunderstood or misread what he stated, but I don't think Cruz's reference to libertarian and populism was meant to ignore the economic fiasco that we find ourselves in, but rather making a claim of protecting our freedom  (conservative) v. giving away our freedom (liberal).

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/29/economists-urge-republicans-ignore-deficit-216491

[Absalom]

economic restraint?, entitlement reduction?  Wanted to add few added to your list.  And again these are part of what was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.  AND missing from Cruz' new politico manifesto.

---------------------------
Respectfully, please get real for 10 seconds and get off your 'economics' hobby horse!!!
Principled conservatism existed some 5,000 years past when Man subsisted on what
he could create from the soil and do w/his hands!!!!
Economic restraint and entitlement reduction meant zero to him as he was guided by
the moral precepts of conservatism that allowed him to survive and later thrive.

[catfish1957]

---------------------------
Respectfully, please get real for 10 seconds and get off your 'economics' hobby horse!!!
Principled conservatism existed some 5,000 years past when Man subsisted on what
he could create from the soil and do w/his hands!!!!
Economic restraint and entitlement reduction meant zero to him as he was guided by
the moral precepts of conservatism that allowed him to survive and later thrive.

LMAO.....  Moral precepts?  And you are the one accusing me of being on a specific topic "hobby horse"?,  I guess you meant "high horse".

Sorry, but this might be the most vague gibberishy, and  goobly goop, I have seen  at TBR in awhile.   In all respect, WTH are you talking about?  Not trying to be rude, but surviving and thriving exists mainly on man's ability to maintain a level of subsidence and wealth, to (1) sustain and grow his family, (2) accumulate stores, to weather economic down turns and storms, (3) Be able to take care of extended families and friends in need, (4) Accumulate enough to be able to influence politcal narrative, be it at a local, state, or national level.  (5) Establish enough financial base to not burden children in old age.  That is just the cold hard facts, and any less an endorsement of that is unacceptable.

Your dig at me around economic restraint and entitlement is especially puzzling.  In my youth, before the time of massive ovespending by the federal government this philosphy may have not have held the same level of importance as now. In that time frame, people were expected to live withn their means, and those who didn't or filed for bankruptcy for were looked down in shame.  You can debate the merits of that, but that was the way it was.  Nowadays people not only embrace entitlements, but expect them. It has created a mindset in a significant percentage of our populaton, that they can put forth minimal effort in society, since the government wil take care of them anyway.  If that doesn't constitute an "immoral precept", I am wondering what  you are doing at. a conservative forum.

Additonally, if you read W.F. Buckley's works or watch his Firing Line shows, he periodically refered to the 3 legged stool of conservatism.  (1) National Security, (2) Social Conservatism, and (3) Fiscal Conservatism

Get Real.......  Sawing off and throwing that 3rd leg into the campfire is NOT in the best interest of anyone wanting the best for our country.

[FeelNoPain]

Additonally, if you read W.F. Buckley's works or watch his Firing Line shows, he periodically refered to the 3 legged stool of conservatism.  (1) National Security, (2) Social Conservatism, and (3) Fiscal Conservatism

Buckley would have loved Trump. 

[catfish1957]

Buckley would have loved Trump. 

Federal Debt added by POTUS

Trump (based on $29T EOY estimate)-  $8.9T (4 yrs.)
Obama- $8.1T (8 yrs.)
GWB- $4.4T (8 yrs.)
RWR-$1.7T (8 yrs.)
WJC- $1.6T (8 yrs.)
GHWB- $1.4T (4 yrs.)
Carter- $0.3T (4 yrs)

Tell me again, how Buckley would have loved this?

[roamer_1]

Buckley would have loved Trump. 

Oh HELL no.

[EasyAce]

Buckley would have loved Trump. 

That's what you think . . .

From The Demagogues are Running, William F. Buckley, Jr., Cigar Aficionado, March/April 2000

we have the one problem--the encouragement given to demagogues by undiscriminating voters. The procedure here is to attract support to finance a campaign. But does the term demagogue fit in other circumstances? What about the aspirant who has a private vision to offer to the public and has the means, personal or contrived, to finance a campaign? In some cases, the vision isn't merely a program to be adopted. It is a program that includes the visionary's serving as President. Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today's lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America.

But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents--midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War--had little to do with a bottom line.

From WFB Today: In the age of Trump, the movement Bill Buckley founded needs rebuilding," National Review, 5 March 2018, referencing the Cigar Aficionado essay---by Richard Brookhiser, who knew Buckley since joining National Review full time as a senior editor in 1977:

This was a political as well as a personal judgment: Trump sought office not to accomplish anything, but to advance and gratify himself. Candidate Trump had issues in 2000, and more in 2016, and beyond. But Bill knew his man. They had been fellow New Yorkers for decades. Bill did not regularly read Page Six, but his wife Pat did. Bill had observed every step of Trump’s public career. He knew Trump was gilt all the way down . . .

. . . Admiring Trump is different from voting for him, or working with him. Politics is calculation; “to live,” Whittaker Chambers told Buckley, who quoted it ever after, “is to maneuver.” But to admire Trump is to trade your principles for his, which are that winning — which means Trump winning — is all.

In three years (maybe seven), Donald Trump will no longer be president. But conservatives who bent the knee will still be writing and thinking. How will it be possible to take them seriously?

The short answer is, it won’t. But that is not an answer that Bill would give. Minds change, hearts change. That’s why he spent so much time arguing, with foes and friends alike. It will take a lot of arguing to rebuild a conservative movement that one can contemplate without scorn.

[roamer_1]

In three years (maybe seven), Donald Trump will no longer be president. But conservatives who bent the knee will still be writing and thinking. How will it be possible to take them seriously?

The short answer is, it won’t. But that is not an answer that Bill would give. Minds change, hearts change. That’s why he spent so much time arguing, with foes and friends alike. It will take a lot of arguing to rebuild a conservative movement that one can contemplate without scorn.

I heard that.