Excellent Article from FreedomWorks (Old) Criticizing Hawley

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/josh-hawley-and-rick-scotts-bizarre-support-for-socialist-price-controls

[Libertas Vel Mors]

If Josh Hawley wins the nomination in 2024, the party is done. No credible conservative could support him. Donald Trump Jr > Hawley.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

If Josh Hawley wins the nomination in 2024, the party is done. No credible conservative could support him. Donald Trump Jr > Hawley.

Jr lacks basic competence. Hawley seems to have his wits about him.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

If Josh Hawley wins the nomination in 2024, the party is done. No credible conservative could support him. Donald Trump Jr > Hawley.

Jr lacks basic competence.

Yeah. He's also a stupid grifter. But Hawley isn't even a conservative.

[I’m not Stu]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

Its where the GOP base is at though. Most fiscally conservative base voters live in trendy, fast growing metros and are either being transformed by immigration, transformed by generational change (with millennials desperate for gov't action on student loan debt and climate), or being alienated themselves for whatever reason. There just isn't vast tracts of endless suburbia ready to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican up and down the ballot anymore.

There is endless swaths of hollowed out middle America, rural areas, small towns, ex-manufacturing enclaves, and working class non-college white suburbs that are more than willing to because they hate the Democrats on immigration, energy/environment, and social issues. It just so happens these people want their social security, their medicare, healthcare and good paying jobs.

Chase a phantom of the past or evolve to meet the needs of the real tangible voting blocks (be it those new voters in the suburbs or the old ones in the rural areas), the direction markers are point the same direction.

Reality is unraveling the lie that conservatives have told themselves for the past 30 years about static ideologies advancing static agendas. The economy is constantly evolving and the policies have to be just as dynamic or the voters will eventually cast those advocating the static boilerplate to the dustbin of history.

Large numbers of voters loved higher tariffs in 1860 and 1896, not so much in 1932. Reaganism was the new thing on the block in 1980 just like Protectionism was in the 19th century and it benefited the growth region and that region reacted by powering its majorities. Eventually though the dynamic shifts, tariffs became a hindrance to exports and once that became painfully exposed, it was washed away in an instance. I expect the same to happen to supply side tax cutting.

Conservatism will be just fine and will exist forever but the exact policies that were popular and benefited the growth region in 1980 are a chapter in a book people will read about decades from now, with several more coming after it. When it worked, and then when it didn't work anymore.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

Its where the GOP base is at though. Most fiscally conservative base voters live in trendy, fast growing metros and are either being transformed by immigration, transformed by generational change (with millennials desperate for gov't action on student loan debt and climate), or being alienated themselves for whatever reason. There just isn't vast tracts of endless suburbia ready to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican up and down the ballot anymore.

There is endless swaths of hollowed out middle America, rural areas, small towns, ex-manufacturing enclaves, and working class non-college white suburbs that are more than willing to because they hate the Democrats on immigration, energy/environment, and social issues. It just so happens these people want their social security, their medicare, healthcare and good paying jobs.

Chase a phantom of the past or evolve to meet the needs of the real tangible voting blocks (be it those new voters in the suburbs or the old ones in the rural areas), the direction markers are point the same direction.

Reality is unraveling the lie that conservatives have told themselves for the past 30 years about static ideologies advancing static agendas. The economy is constantly evolving and the policies have to be just as dynamic or the voters will eventually cast those advocating the static boilerplate to the dustbin of history.

Large numbers of voters loved higher tariffs in 1860 and 1896, not so much in 1932. Reaganism was the new thing on the block in 1980 just like Protectionism was in the 19th century and it benefited the growth region and that region reacted by powering its majorities. Eventually though the dynamic shifts, tariffs became a hindrance to exports and once that became painfully exposed, it was washed away in an instance. I expect the same to happen to supply side tax cutting.

Conservatism will be just fine and will exist forever but the exact policies that were popular and benefited the growth region in 1980 are a chapter in a book people will read about decades from now, with several more coming after it. When it worked, and then when it didn't work anymore.

Better dead than red. If conservatism doesn't include fiscal, than it is not a place for the 60% of Republicans who define as fiscally conservative, and it certainly doesn't include me. I'd still never vote D for baby killers, but if it's one statist party vs another the American experiment has failed.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

And that's just bad economics. Supply side tax cuts return capital to the private economy and encourage investment. They help, not hurt, everyday Americans.

[MT Treasurer]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

lmfao

[Skill and Chance]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

Its where the GOP base is at though. Most fiscally conservative base voters live in trendy, fast growing metros and are either being transformed by immigration, transformed by generational change (with millennials desperate for gov't action on student loan debt and climate), or being alienated themselves for whatever reason. There just isn't vast tracts of endless suburbia ready to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican up and down the ballot anymore.

There is endless swaths of hollowed out middle America, rural areas, small towns, ex-manufacturing enclaves, and working class non-college white suburbs that are more than willing to because they hate the Democrats on immigration, energy/environment, and social issues. It just so happens these people want their social security, their medicare, healthcare and good paying jobs.

Chase a phantom of the past or evolve to meet the needs of the real tangible voting blocks (be it those new voters in the suburbs or the old ones in the rural areas), the direction markers are point the same direction.

Reality is unraveling the lie that conservatives have told themselves for the past 30 years about static ideologies advancing static agendas. The economy is constantly evolving and the policies have to be just as dynamic or the voters will eventually cast those advocating the static boilerplate to the dustbin of history.

Large numbers of voters loved higher tariffs in 1860 and 1896, not so much in 1932. Reaganism was the new thing on the block in 1980 just like Protectionism was in the 19th century and it benefited the growth region and that region reacted by powering its majorities. Eventually though the dynamic shifts, tariffs became a hindrance to exports and once that became painfully exposed, it was washed away in an instance. I expect the same to happen to supply side tax cutting.

Conservatism will be just fine and will exist forever but the exact policies that were popular and benefited the growth region in 1980 are a chapter in a book people will read about decades from now, with several more coming after it. When it worked, and then when it didn't work anymore.

Do you think Hawley would actually campaign on raising federal income taxes?!

I could more reasonably see the next Republican president imposing a federal VAT.  That goes pretty hand in hand with protectionism.

[Grassroots]

FreedomWorks is basically TPUSA but dumber and more hillbilly.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

Its where the GOP base is at though. Most fiscally conservative base voters live in trendy, fast growing metros and are either being transformed by immigration, transformed by generational change (with millennials desperate for gov't action on student loan debt and climate), or being alienated themselves for whatever reason. There just isn't vast tracts of endless suburbia ready to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican up and down the ballot anymore.

There is endless swaths of hollowed out middle America, rural areas, small towns, ex-manufacturing enclaves, and working class non-college white suburbs that are more than willing to because they hate the Democrats on immigration, energy/environment, and social issues. It just so happens these people want their social security, their medicare, healthcare and good paying jobs.

Chase a phantom of the past or evolve to meet the needs of the real tangible voting blocks (be it those new voters in the suburbs or the old ones in the rural areas), the direction markers are point the same direction.

Reality is unraveling the lie that conservatives have told themselves for the past 30 years about static ideologies advancing static agendas. The economy is constantly evolving and the policies have to be just as dynamic or the voters will eventually cast those advocating the static boilerplate to the dustbin of history.

Large numbers of voters loved higher tariffs in 1860 and 1896, not so much in 1932. Reaganism was the new thing on the block in 1980 just like Protectionism was in the 19th century and it benefited the growth region and that region reacted by powering its majorities. Eventually though the dynamic shifts, tariffs became a hindrance to exports and once that became painfully exposed, it was washed away in an instance. I expect the same to happen to supply side tax cutting.

Conservatism will be just fine and will exist forever but the exact policies that were popular and benefited the growth region in 1980 are a chapter in a book people will read about decades from now, with several more coming after it. When it worked, and then when it didn't work anymore.

Do you think Hawley would actually campaign on raising federal income taxes?!

I could more reasonably see the next Republican president imposing a federal VAT.  That goes pretty hand in hand with protectionism.

Yes and yes.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

FreedomWorks is basically TPUSA but dumber and more hillbilly.

And Nick Fuentes is basically Alex Jones but more stupid and more racist. It amuses me to no end that a man named "Fuentes" is leading the Groyper charge.

[Technocracy Timmy]

FreedomWorks is basically TPUSA but dumber and more hillbilly.

And Nick Fuentes is basically Alex Jones but more stupid and more racist. It amuses me to no end that a man named "Fuentes" is leading the Groyper charge.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

Its where the GOP base is at though. Most fiscally conservative base voters live in trendy, fast growing metros and are either being transformed by immigration, transformed by generational change (with millennials desperate for gov't action on student loan debt and climate), or being alienated themselves for whatever reason. There just isn't vast tracts of endless suburbia ready to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican up and down the ballot anymore.

There is endless swaths of hollowed out middle America, rural areas, small towns, ex-manufacturing enclaves, and working class non-college white suburbs that are more than willing to because they hate the Democrats on immigration, energy/environment, and social issues. It just so happens these people want their social security, their medicare, healthcare and good paying jobs.

Chase a phantom of the past or evolve to meet the needs of the real tangible voting blocks (be it those new voters in the suburbs or the old ones in the rural areas), the direction markers are point the same direction.

Reality is unraveling the lie that conservatives have told themselves for the past 30 years about static ideologies advancing static agendas. The economy is constantly evolving and the policies have to be just as dynamic or the voters will eventually cast those advocating the static boilerplate to the dustbin of history.

Large numbers of voters loved higher tariffs in 1860 and 1896, not so much in 1932. Reaganism was the new thing on the block in 1980 just like Protectionism was in the 19th century and it benefited the growth region and that region reacted by powering its majorities. Eventually though the dynamic shifts, tariffs became a hindrance to exports and once that became painfully exposed, it was washed away in an instance. I expect the same to happen to supply side tax cutting.

Conservatism will be just fine and will exist forever but the exact policies that were popular and benefited the growth region in 1980 are a chapter in a book people will read about decades from now, with several more coming after it. When it worked, and then when it didn't work anymore.

Do you think Hawley would actually campaign on raising federal income taxes?!

I could more reasonably see the next Republican president imposing a federal VAT.  That goes pretty hand in hand with protectionism.

Hardly, evolution occurs in small steps.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

Its where the GOP base is at though. Most fiscally conservative base voters live in trendy, fast growing metros and are either being transformed by immigration, transformed by generational change (with millennials desperate for gov't action on student loan debt and climate), or being alienated themselves for whatever reason. There just isn't vast tracts of endless suburbia ready to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican up and down the ballot anymore.

There is endless swaths of hollowed out middle America, rural areas, small towns, ex-manufacturing enclaves, and working class non-college white suburbs that are more than willing to because they hate the Democrats on immigration, energy/environment, and social issues. It just so happens these people want their social security, their medicare, healthcare and good paying jobs.

Chase a phantom of the past or evolve to meet the needs of the real tangible voting blocks (be it those new voters in the suburbs or the old ones in the rural areas), the direction markers are point the same direction.

Reality is unraveling the lie that conservatives have told themselves for the past 30 years about static ideologies advancing static agendas. The economy is constantly evolving and the policies have to be just as dynamic or the voters will eventually cast those advocating the static boilerplate to the dustbin of history.

Large numbers of voters loved higher tariffs in 1860 and 1896, not so much in 1932. Reaganism was the new thing on the block in 1980 just like Protectionism was in the 19th century and it benefited the growth region and that region reacted by powering its majorities. Eventually though the dynamic shifts, tariffs became a hindrance to exports and once that became painfully exposed, it was washed away in an instance. I expect the same to happen to supply side tax cutting.

Conservatism will be just fine and will exist forever but the exact policies that were popular and benefited the growth region in 1980 are a chapter in a book people will read about decades from now, with several more coming after it. When it worked, and then when it didn't work anymore.

Better dead than red. If conservatism doesn't include fiscal, than it is not a place for the 60% of Republicans who define as fiscally conservative, and it certainly doesn't include me. I'd still never vote D for baby killers, but if it's one statist party vs another the American experiment has failed.

America was industrialized under a policy of protectionism, internal subsidies and land grant colleges.

How can you judge a 250 year old country a failure, based on the failure of an economic agenda that is just 40 years old? Are you saying that America was a "red" country prior to 1980? This would come as quite a shock to Calvin Coolidge, Ike and especially Richard Nixon.

I divide it into periods like this:
1860-1896 - Protectionism+Internal Subsidies (mainly for railroads, but also land for farmers)
1896-1932 - Protectionism+Lassiez Faire (Yes, Wilson and TR don't neatly fit this paradigm but the 1920s does and so does McKinley)
1932 - 1980 - Free Trade+Keynesianism
1980 - ? - Free Trade+Supply Side Economics

Of course there were exceptions to this naturally and the years are somewhat arbitrary, but it illustrates the point just how short term these economic policy cycles are, 36 to 48 years in length and typically book ended by a Depression/Recession that reshapes people's understanding of how policies benefit them in reality.

Values are not policies. The values can guide policy, but the policy should not be mistaken for values, clinged to inflexibly. If that were the case, then Reagan would have never overcome Keynesian economics himself. The situation on the ground dictated that result. Likewise, the situation now dictates difference means.

Plus I don't think it will be the same level of statism, far from it. Also its worth noting that Hawley is at this point mostly positioning with little substance or accomplishment to back it up. So I wouldn't be hitting the panic button of him, but it should validate my years old predictions, the fact that he has calculated as much and is positioning himself accordingly is solid evidence that is where possible contenders think things are heading.

Also fiscally conservative is not the same as supporting supply side. In fact I would point out that pre-Reagan, "fiscal conservatives" opposed deficit funded tax cuts because their priority was removing the debt not cutting taxes.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Hawley is a social conservative and economic moderate.

I would put Hawley to the left of most of the Dems elected in 2018.

Its where the GOP base is at though. Most fiscally conservative base voters live in trendy, fast growing metros and are either being transformed by immigration, transformed by generational change (with millennials desperate for gov't action on student loan debt and climate), or being alienated themselves for whatever reason. There just isn't vast tracts of endless suburbia ready to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican up and down the ballot anymore.

There is endless swaths of hollowed out middle America, rural areas, small towns, ex-manufacturing enclaves, and working class non-college white suburbs that are more than willing to because they hate the Democrats on immigration, energy/environment, and social issues. It just so happens these people want their social security, their medicare, healthcare and good paying jobs.

Chase a phantom of the past or evolve to meet the needs of the real tangible voting blocks (be it those new voters in the suburbs or the old ones in the rural areas), the direction markers are point the same direction.

Reality is unraveling the lie that conservatives have told themselves for the past 30 years about static ideologies advancing static agendas. The economy is constantly evolving and the policies have to be just as dynamic or the voters will eventually cast those advocating the static boilerplate to the dustbin of history.

Large numbers of voters loved higher tariffs in 1860 and 1896, not so much in 1932. Reaganism was the new thing on the block in 1980 just like Protectionism was in the 19th century and it benefited the growth region and that region reacted by powering its majorities. Eventually though the dynamic shifts, tariffs became a hindrance to exports and once that became painfully exposed, it was washed away in an instance. I expect the same to happen to supply side tax cutting.

Conservatism will be just fine and will exist forever but the exact policies that were popular and benefited the growth region in 1980 are a chapter in a book people will read about decades from now, with several more coming after it. When it worked, and then when it didn't work anymore.

Better dead than red. If conservatism doesn't include fiscal, than it is not a place for the 60% of Republicans who define as fiscally conservative, and it certainly doesn't include me. I'd still never vote D for baby killers, but if it's one statist party vs another the American experiment has failed.

America was industrialized under a policy of protectionism, internal subsidies and land grant colleges.

How can you judge a 250 year old country a failure, based on the failure of an economic agenda that is just 40 years old? Are you saying that America was a "red" country prior to 1980? This would come as quite a shock to Calvin Coolidge, Ike and especially Richard Nixon.

I divide it into periods like this:
1860-1896 - Protectionism+Internal Subsidies (mainly for railroads, but also land for farmers)
1896-1932 - Protectionism+Lassiez Faire (Yes, Wilson and TR don't neatly fit this paradigm but the 1920s does and so does McKinley)
1932 - 1980 - Free Trade+Keynesianism
1980 - ? - Free Trade+Supply Side Economics

Of course there were exceptions to this naturally and the years are somewhat arbitrary, but it illustrates the point just how short term these economic policy cycles are, 36 to 48 years in length and typically book ended by a Depression/Recession that reshapes people's understanding of how policies benefit them in reality.

Values are not policies. The values can guide policy, but the policy should not be mistaken for values, clinged to inflexibly. If that were the case, then Reagan would have never overcome Keynesian economics himself. The situation on the ground dictated that result. Likewise, the situation now dictates difference means.

Plus I don't think it will be the same level of statism, far from it. Also its worth noting that Hawley is at this point mostly positioning with little substance or accomplishment to back it up. So I wouldn't be hitting the panic button of him, but it should validate my years old predictions, the fact that he has calculated as much and is positioning himself accordingly is solid evidence that is where possible contenders think things are heading.

Also fiscally conservative is not the same as supporting supply side. In fact I would point out that pre-Reagan, "fiscal conservatives" opposed deficit funded tax cuts because their priority was removing the debt not cutting taxes.

No, America was industrialized by men like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockerfeller. It was not land grant colleges that built the Erie Canal, or the steel mills of Pennsylvania. It was not internal subsidies (save for the selling off of land) that built the oil drills of Texas. And what Josh Hawley calls for is not just protectionism. Protectionism is the governmental picking of winners and losers. It is shameful economic interference that harms consumers and businesses alike. But we have dealt with it before, and will deal with it again if it becomes an issue. Nay, the issue with Josh Hawley is that he calls for big government, and of the sort that only once in your listing of economic timeframes has ever appeared before. But now is not 1946. It is not 1947. We are not alone in the ruins of a post war world, with America alone as an economic superpower. We live in an increasingly globalized world, where Hawley's big government, just like Roosevelt's big government did with the second spike in 1938, will inevitably harm and burn our country like a chimp with a machine gun. And when they do, it remains to be seen if there is any last resistance. In the 60s, in the 70s, and the 80s, we were lucky enough to be saved by courageous conservatives, men and women like Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schafly, and Ronald Reagan. But with partisanship and demographics today, who is to say that we can pull that off a second time? If the Manchurian Candidate wins, who is to say that we will be so lucky again? Who is to say that the values our great nation was founded upon, of the right to life, of the right to liberty, of the right to property, of the right to the pursuit of happiness, will survive?

[Devils30]

I think Hawley's economic platform would set the GOP for an opportunity to win more African-American and second generation American Hispanic voters. These voters are the least socially liberal/elitist version of the Democratic coalition and the left's obsession with identity issues such as pronouns over economics seems made to lose these voters. Of course such a realignment would give Dems more Koch brothers types so the GOP would lose unless it captured working class minorities.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Glad to see Yankee is fighting the good fight in this thread. Imagine thinking the Erie Canal is an argument against state investment in public works.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, America was industrialized by men like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockerfeller. It was not land grant colleges that built the Erie Canal, or the steel mills of Pennsylvania. It was not internal subsidies (save for the selling off of land) that built the oil drills of Texas.

So does anyone else see the problem here? Just because "one" of the above listed policies didn't apply, doesn't refute the overall point. What I said was, we were industrialized under 1. Protectionism, 2. Internal Subsidies and 3. Land Grant Colleges. This is not in any way factually inaccurate, these policies existed at the time. Mistakingly drawing the lines connecting what policies benefited which development doesn't change that. Subsidies benefited railroads and thus benefited steel. Tariffs protected a range of industries from foreign competition (mainly from Britain during this period) and then of course the Land grant colleges are a more generalized impact, but education and importantly technical education were critical to the development and advancement of industry. We take this for granted in an era when computers and internet are what we think of as technology, but industrialization required a range of skills both in terms of college and non-college in origin, engineers, architects, a range of sciences, not to mention the vast growth in what we now call white collar jobs that these industries tend to create in law, finance, accounting, banking etc.

Yes entrepreneurship was important and I would be the first to point that out, but the idea that the 19th century was some kind of lassiez-faire paradise belies the reality that America was basically operating under a water down form of state capitalism for much of the second half of the 19th century and yet it was during this period that the American Economy surged past everyone else. Yes freedom and entrepreneurship were critical, but it wasn't freedom that built the Transcontinental or the Erie Canal. It was Gov't intervention (the latter being at the state level but same idea), operating under a framework of economic nationalism. The same vein of thought that Josh Hawley is operating under.

And what Josh Hawley calls for is not just protectionism. Protectionism is the governmental picking of winners and losers. It is shameful economic interference that harms consumers and businesses alike. But we have dealt with it before, and will deal with it again if it becomes an issue. Nay, the issue with Josh Hawley is that he calls for big government, and of the sort that only once in your listing of economic timeframes has ever appeared before. But now is not 1946. It is not 1947. We are not alone in the ruins of a post war world, with America alone as an economic superpower. We live in an increasingly globalized world, where Hawley's big government, just like Roosevelt's big government did with the second spike in 1938, will inevitably harm and burn our country like a chimp with a machine gun. And when they do, it remains to be seen if there is any last resistance. In the 60s, in the 70s, and the 80s, we were lucky enough to be saved by courageous conservatives, men and women like Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schafly, and Ronald Reagan. But with partisanship and demographics today, who is to say that we can pull that off a second time? If the Manchurian Candidate wins, who is to say that we will be so lucky again? Who is to say that the values our great nation was founded upon, of the right to life, of the right to liberty, of the right to property, of the right to the pursuit of happiness, will survive?

When you have a captured market to the point that you can raise prices with no natural restraints except demand dropping and in this case demand dropping meaning bodies are hitting the floor, yea I think that is a good case for price controls. That is not a free market that is functionally a monopoly where the only countervailing natural force is letting people die in the streets. Sorry that is not a recipe for a stable society, nor trust in the free market and if you want to turn America Communist, there is no greater way to provoke that than letting the desperation fester and growth, which will create pressure points for inevitable action. As people get more desperate, they will eventually just elect people who will create an NHS system that dictates prices to the market and they either take it or leave it. Don't want that to occur? Then perhaps you should listen to people like me when we tell you this is to avert that inevitability.

Whenever conservatives rest on the laurels or innate goodness of things they think are unbreakable, they will be disappointed every time. Russia was the most religious country on earth in 1917, all it took was hunger and war weariness and the despair that both created to lead them to atheistic communism. Historical lesson: Hunger and war exhaustion will overcome any historical bonds including America's "love for freedom". You can just as easily throw in lack of health care with hunger because it operates the same way.

People need food to survive, and they need health care to survive as well. Especially if they are diabetic, or have some other disease that means they need ongoing health "maintenance" to survive. You cannot say to them they need to get a job to get healthcare meanwhile their ability to work is actively being degraded by their lack of access to health care. I have seen relatives lose their ability to work because they had to work with a degenerative condition, without treatment and this took them out of the workforce years earlier than and in one case led to an early death.

You cannot treat health care like any other "market place" because the decline in demand means that behind those numbers someone is dying, someone is being made unable to work and someone is being left without a father or a mother (what was all of that stuff about single parent homes leading to worse societal outcomes? It applies here to, those rules don't magically stop applying because a medical condition took them away as opposed to a father running off to get milk and never coming back).

Natural demand thus can never restrain prices and thus companies have what I call a "captured market" and can charge whatever they want. That is not a "free" market, that is a hostage situation, especially if they hold the patent and only they can make that medicine. As far as this is concerned, I think Hawley's position is both right and get this "MORE CONSERVATIVE" then the libertarian alternative, which just will turn more people to socialism out of desperation (political reactions tend to follow Newtonian laws of physics, at least equal and opposite reaction).

Conservatism is not about smaller government (that is only part of achieving a larger objective). It is about preserving stable institutions and stable families. To the extent government is in the way, that needs to change, but the to the extent that nothing short of gov't can alter a situation, like the hostage like environment in the health care market place, they should take action.

[Epaminondas]

If Josh Hawley wins the nomination in 2024, the party is done. No credible conservative could support him. Donald Trump Jr > Hawley.

What malarkey.
The same was said of Donald J Trump in 2016, and look what happened.

[SevenEleven]

Protectionism is the governmental picking of winners and losers.

Not a protectionist but please turn off your parents' talk radio programs. Literally any policy will result in "winners and losers", and government predates capitalism so this is a verifiably ignorant take.

big government

Seriously, kid, drop the talk radio and read a book or something.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

"Size of government", in the abstract way that American conservatives talk about it, is one of the most frou-frou and irrelevant boutique issues ever. What matters is what the state--which ideally should be a distinct institution from the government but in America is not--is actually doing, not "how much of it" it's doing. A state that spends ten billion a year bombing foreign civilians is manifestly doing more harm than a state that spends fifty billion a year on domestic healthcare or nutritional subsidies. The conventional wisdom otherwise is narcissistic--and, in the historical long term, faddish--ideologizing with no connection to "conserving" anything at all.

ETA: The same goes for the girl I once saw on Tumblr or some such site boasting that she always voted for higher taxes--presumably including higher sales taxes, alcohol/cigarette taxes, and others with obviously regressive effects. It's the same exact sort of noxious "should the government do stuff? maek u think..." hackery that the Reagan/Gingrich/Norquist right rode to power, and it's the cancer that's killing American social policy.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Firstly, NC Senator is one of the best, most informative posters on this board.

Secondly-the vast bulk of the GOP electorate doesn't care about abstract issues like "the size of government" or other National Review/Ron Paul style niche economic issues.  The Tea Party movement was initially very Libertarian/small government and anti-war, but rather small when Bush was still in office.  By mid 2009-2010, the big money donors got involved and it swelled into a juggernaut movement, but it's focus moved onto cultural wedge issues rather than Libertarian Doctrine.

Trump got the Tea Party's full fledged support without much in the way of fiscal conservatism or constitutional originalism.  He accomplished this with making immigration policy front and center, rejecting the ongoing Middle Eastern wars, attacking NAFTA against the backdrop of a long dying domestic industry, and mastery of both social media and traditional media manipulation.  Tapping Pence and Scalia's passing got him the Evangelicals full support.

The vast Tea party voting base never cared about hardcore fiscal conservatism (evidenced by their support for Trump) and GOP voters who did nearly all lined up behind Trump once nominated because the other option was, well.. Hillary Clinton.

What fiscal conservatives, particularly those who bemoan the populist trend like much of National Review's staff or posters like Dean Heller have to understand, is that enthusiastic Paul Ryan-ite fiscal conservatism is political poison to 70+ percent of the electorate.  Furthermore, the white-collar suburban voters that left the GOP are NOT coming back and won't come back unless the DNC goes full fledged Squad/Labour, which ain't happening.  The GOP needs to persuade new voters, particularly those under 40 and populist economics appear far more "compassionate" then Reaganomics.