Conservatives only: If trump loses, will you still support Trumpism or will you abandon it?

[Saint Milei]

The GOP's only path is to go back to some form of Bushism, it's either that or going back to the Rockefeller Republicanism of the 60's and 70's. As a former Republican, who actually once had some faith in Trump, I've become completely alarmed by his racism, sexism, xenophobia, as well as his total incompetence in office. The GOP needs to have a platform that is more than "Dunking on the libz" if it wants to actually have a future. I think their best path is actually to nominate a Baker/Scott ticket in 2024 and try to reach out to the Romney Republicans and other voters who have become disenchanted with the modern GOP, and yes this falls into the second category.

You were never a republican

[S019]

The GOP's only path is to go back to some form of Bushism, it's either that or going back to the Rockefeller Republicanism of the 60's and 70's. As a former Republican, who actually once had some faith in Trump, I've become completely alarmed by his racism, sexism, xenophobia, as well as his total incompetence in office. The GOP needs to have a platform that is more than "Dunking on the libz" if it wants to actually have a future. I think their best path is actually to nominate a Baker/Scott ticket in 2024 and try to reach out to the Romney Republicans and other voters who have become disenchanted with the modern GOP, and yes this falls into the second category.

You were never a republican

This isn't true, in fact, I actually backed Trump in 2016 and backed Republicans in the 2018 midterms, though eventually I became concerned with the direction that the party was going, and you can still see those remnants of Republicanism in me from me backing Susan Collins this year.

[Saint Milei]

The GOP's only path is to go back to some form of Bushism, it's either that or going back to the Rockefeller Republicanism of the 60's and 70's. As a former Republican, who actually once had some faith in Trump, I've become completely alarmed by his racism, sexism, xenophobia, as well as his total incompetence in office. The GOP needs to have a platform that is more than "Dunking on the libz" if it wants to actually have a future. I think their best path is actually to nominate a Baker/Scott ticket in 2024 and try to reach out to the Romney Republicans and other voters who have become disenchanted with the modern GOP, and yes this falls into the second category.

You were never a republican

This isn't true, in fact, I actually backed Trump in 2016 and backed Republicans in the 2018 midterms, though eventually I became concerned with the direction that the party was going, and you can still see those remnants of Republicanism in me from me backing Susan Collins this year.

I meant to say you were never a conservative

[RINO Tom]

Dead Prez ... you can still be a populist man of the people and use the damn shift key.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Dead Prez ... you can still be a populist man of the people and use the damn shift key.

No, if you are a populist man of the people, you can't like the accumulation of capital (letters)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

literally what is a populist foreign policy

fifteen years ago it meant you wanted to fight the terrists. now it means you dont. what gives

[RINO Tom]

literally what is a populist foreign policy

fifteen years ago it meant you wanted to fight the terrists. now it means you dont. what gives

This is the danger of some more, err, "populist" conservatives like Dead Prez and other Trump supporters defining conservatism through some type of identity.  The people THEY live around and care about and think like they do are "conservatives" ... different people aren't.  Period.  If the 75-year old woman down the street wants higher taxes on businesses, an increased social safety net and more funding for public schools, so what?  She's White and old and religious and patriotic and therefore a conservative!  A patriotic farmer from South Dakota who has voted GOP his entire life with stridently conservative views and opposes the displaying of the Confederate flag on government property, seeing it as a celebration of treason and an insult to the Stars and Stripes might genuinely called "less conservative" than some lady from Alabama who has Confederate sympathies but voted for Democrats until 2012 and still votes for "the right kind of Democrat," lol.  I mean, that's insane ... but I'm sure many here would unironically say that.

This obviously and naturally leads to a figure like Trump, who can effectively hold any stance and still be adored as a "true conservative" because he's *standing up for me and mine* to many of these people.  Political ideologies that hinder too closely on identity (i.e., White, rural and traditionalist) and not on philosophy or policy (i.e., cautious approach to societal change or suspicion of the mob rash populism) is a toxic recipe for the current divide we have.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

literally what is a populist foreign policy

fifteen years ago it meant you wanted to fight the terrists. now it means you dont. what gives

This is the danger of some more, err, "populist" conservatives like Dead Prez and other Trump supporters defining conservatism through some type of identity.  The people THEY live around and care about and think like they do are "conservatives" ... different people aren't.  Period.  If the 75-year old woman down the street wants higher taxes on businesses, an increased social safety net and more funding for public schools, so what?  She's White and old and religious and patriotic and therefore a conservative!  A patriotic farmer from South Dakota who has voted GOP his entire life with stridently conservative views and opposes the displaying of the Confederate flag on government property, seeing it as a celebration of treason and an insult to the Stars and Stripes might genuinely called "less conservative" than some lady from Alabama who has Confederate sympathies but voted for Democrats until 2012 and still votes for "the right kind of Democrat," lol.  I mean, that's insane ... but I'm sure many here would unironically say that.

This obviously and naturally leads to a figure like Trump, who can effectively hold any stance and still be adored as a "true conservative" because he's *standing up for me and mine* to many of these people.  Political ideologies that hinder too closely on identity (i.e., White, rural and traditionalist) and not on philosophy or policy (i.e., cautious approach to societal change or suspicion of the mob rash populism) is a toxic recipe for the current divide we have.

This seems like a little bit of a strawman.  There was no guarantee that the definition of conservatism would have stayed static had Trump not come along.  The Buckley/Reagan Movement Conservatism (and it's cousin, Neoconservatism) has been the leading influence of the GOP since 1980 in it's current form.  Just because it was effective for it's first 24 years does not mean it can stay viable forever, and it hasn't been for years.

Trump should not be mistaken for a philosopher or an intellectual, but even he understood that certain parts of movement GOP orthodoxy was very unpopular: cutting entitlements, an interventionist foreign policy, immigration policy that benefits corporate interests, and NAFTA/TPP.  The Republican Party has to evolve to get with the times, and although Trump has been ineffective at implementing his agenda there are positive steps compared to the pre-2016 GOP, and I'd be happy to name some since his platform was just released yesterday. 

This is why I back Senator Josh Hawley in 2024 (or barring him, DeSantis or Rubio).  Movement conservatives like Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley and Dan Crenshaw like to speak in vague platitudes about how every issue boils down to an issue of taxes and regulations, and any tax/regs is "socialism".  That's not how you win and not how you build a coalition- That's a 1980s approach to 2020's problems-you win by offering solutions to modern issues that can't simply be solved by "teh free market", like prescription drug prices or college debt.

[SNJ1985]

literally what is a populist foreign policy

fifteen years ago it meant you wanted to fight the terrists. now it means you dont. what gives

This is the danger of some more, err, "populist" conservatives like Dead Prez and other Trump supporters defining conservatism through some type of identity.  The people THEY live around and care about and think like they do are "conservatives" ... different people aren't.  Period.  If the 75-year old woman down the street wants higher taxes on businesses, an increased social safety net and more funding for public schools, so what?  She's White and old and religious and patriotic and therefore a conservative!  A patriotic farmer from South Dakota who has voted GOP his entire life with stridently conservative views and opposes the displaying of the Confederate flag on government property, seeing it as a celebration of treason and an insult to the Stars and Stripes might genuinely called "less conservative" than some lady from Alabama who has Confederate sympathies but voted for Democrats until 2012 and still votes for "the right kind of Democrat," lol.  I mean, that's insane ... but I'm sure many here would unironically say that.

This obviously and naturally leads to a figure like Trump, who can effectively hold any stance and still be adored as a "true conservative" because he's *standing up for me and mine* to many of these people.  Political ideologies that hinder too closely on identity (i.e., White, rural and traditionalist) and not on philosophy or policy (i.e., cautious approach to societal change or suspicion of the mob rash populism) is a toxic recipe for the current divide we have.

Categorically rejecting identity politics is an utterly insane strategy when your opponents clearly do not (and clearly want to permanently destroy everything that comprises your identity).

[RINO Tom]

literally what is a populist foreign policy

fifteen years ago it meant you wanted to fight the terrists. now it means you dont. what gives

This is the danger of some more, err, "populist" conservatives like Dead Prez and other Trump supporters defining conservatism through some type of identity.  The people THEY live around and care about and think like they do are "conservatives" ... different people aren't.  Period.  If the 75-year old woman down the street wants higher taxes on businesses, an increased social safety net and more funding for public schools, so what?  She's White and old and religious and patriotic and therefore a conservative!  A patriotic farmer from South Dakota who has voted GOP his entire life with stridently conservative views and opposes the displaying of the Confederate flag on government property, seeing it as a celebration of treason and an insult to the Stars and Stripes might genuinely called "less conservative" than some lady from Alabama who has Confederate sympathies but voted for Democrats until 2012 and still votes for "the right kind of Democrat," lol.  I mean, that's insane ... but I'm sure many here would unironically say that.

This obviously and naturally leads to a figure like Trump, who can effectively hold any stance and still be adored as a "true conservative" because he's *standing up for me and mine* to many of these people.  Political ideologies that hinder too closely on identity (i.e., White, rural and traditionalist) and not on philosophy or policy (i.e., cautious approach to societal change or suspicion of the mob rash populism) is a toxic recipe for the current divide we have.

Categorically rejecting identity politics is an utterly insane strategy when your opponents clearly do not (and clearly want to permanently destroy everything that comprises your identity).

I wouldn't say that I endorsed "categorically rejecting identity politics" ... but it's a losing recipe to define a very narrow subset of American (e.g., a White, rural, evangelical Christian in the American South) and tailor working definitions for conservatism to match HIS views rather than judge his views for what they are.

Josh Hawley is less conservative than Mitt Romney, and to say otherwise is redefining the word beyond any intellectual credibility to effectively mean, "Conservatism is what I like, and that is all."

[lfromnj]

literally what is a populist foreign policy

fifteen years ago it meant you wanted to fight the terrists. now it means you dont. what gives

This is the danger of some more, err, "populist" conservatives like Dead Prez and other Trump supporters defining conservatism through some type of identity.  The people THEY live around and care about and think like they do are "conservatives" ... different people aren't.  Period.  If the 75-year old woman down the street wants higher taxes on businesses, an increased social safety net and more funding for public schools, so what?  She's White and old and religious and patriotic and therefore a conservative!  A patriotic farmer from South Dakota who has voted GOP his entire life with stridently conservative views and opposes the displaying of the Confederate flag on government property, seeing it as a celebration of treason and an insult to the Stars and Stripes might genuinely called "less conservative" than some lady from Alabama who has Confederate sympathies but voted for Democrats until 2012 and still votes for "the right kind of Democrat," lol.  I mean, that's insane ... but I'm sure many here would unironically say that.

This obviously and naturally leads to a figure like Trump, who can effectively hold any stance and still be adored as a "true conservative" because he's *standing up for me and mine* to many of these people.  Political ideologies that hinder too closely on identity (i.e., White, rural and traditionalist) and not on philosophy or policy (i.e., cautious approach to societal change or suspicion of the mob rash populism) is a toxic recipe for the current divide we have.

Categorically rejecting identity politics is an utterly insane strategy when your opponents clearly do not (and clearly want to permanently destroy everything that comprises your identity).

I wouldn't say that I endorsed "categorically rejecting identity politics" ... but it's a losing recipe to define a very narrow subset of American (e.g., a White, rural, evangelical Christian in the American South) and tailor working definitions for conservatism to match HIS views rather than judge his views for what they are.

Josh Hawley is less conservative than Mitt Romney, and to say otherwise is redefining the word beyond any intellectual credibility to effectively mean, "Conservatism is what I like, and that is all."

What do you consider conservatism to be?

To some people its to uphold the current hierarchies. Now its true that Mitt Romney's 2012 vision of economic hierarchies would be more extreme than Josh Hawley's. The question is if Mitt Romney's vision can hold without violent or other forms of revolution. If Josh Hawley's goal is to placate the lower classes just like Roosevelt did than its arguable his goals in the end are more conservative.I am not saying I agree but just giving an argument.

[SNJ1985]

Josh Hawley is less conservative than Mitt Romney, and to say otherwise is redefining the word beyond any intellectual credibility to effectively mean, "Conservatism is what I like, and that is all."

Based on what?

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Josh Hawley is less conservative than Mitt Romney, and to say otherwise is redefining the word beyond any intellectual credibility to effectively mean, "Conservatism is what I like, and that is all."

The bolded is literally what the movement conservatives have been doing for years.  The Grover Norquist/tea party purity testing, and the National Review/CATO's gatekeeping of conservatism and refusal to accept people who consider something beside their narrow, radical libertarian economic views.


Mitt Romney is a political weathervein who changes every few years, he makes Elizabeth Warren look like a beacon of principle and consistency.

What the hell good is a "conservatism" that only cares about cutting taxes and helping corporations?  For the last 50 years, the Left has established dominance in every American institution: from Public schools, Universities, Media, Entertainment, and Big Business/Tech most recently.  What have the conservatives ever accomplished to challenge the Left's institutional power?  The movement cons don't care about any of that, as long as they get their tax break and write articles lamenting Trump's break from their sacred orthodoxy.  Why should I care about a conservative party that cares more about enriching Romney and his friends then challenging the Left's influence??


The Neocons failed.  They can either learn and adapt (As Senator Rubio is) or fade into irrelevance (see-Jeb and Kasich)

[OSR stands with Israel]

The GOP's only path is to go back to some form of Bushism, it's either that or going back to the Rockefeller Republicanism of the 60's and 70's. As a former Republican, who actually once had some faith in Trump, I've become completely alarmed by his racism, sexism, xenophobia, as well as his total incompetence in office. The GOP needs to have a platform that is more than "Dunking on the libz" if it wants to actually have a future. I think their best path is actually to nominate a Baker/Scott ticket in 2024 and try to reach out to the Romney Republicans and other voters who have become disenchanted with the modern GOP, and yes this falls into the second category.

You were never a republican

This isn't true, in fact, I actually backed Trump in 2016 and backed Republicans in the 2018 midterms, though eventually I became concerned with the direction that the party was going, and you can still see those remnants of Republicanism in me from me backing Susan Collins this year.

I meant to say you were never a conservative

He literally founded the pro life group in Atlasia

[Person Man]

I hear all of this talk about conservatism is not conservatism if it is only a "relativistic conservatism" based on identity politics. Isn't the basic point of conservatism is that what was good when my culture/identity became recognizable is still good now?

[Battista Minola 1616]

I hear all of this talk about conservatism is not conservatism if it is only a "relativistic conservatism" based on identity politics. Isn't the basic point of conservatism is that what was good when my culture/identity became recognizable is still good now?

My understanding is that the basic point of conservatism is upholding current hierarchies / traditions / norms to the extent that seems reasonable to avoid chaos / revolution.