Ted Cruz: Future of conservatism is populist and libertarian

[Sumner 1868]

Populism and libertarianism are about as opposed to each other as it gets.

Very true. Most people want to leech off of your success while simultaneously telling you what you can and can't do with your personal life. That's why the mob must be resisted at all costs.

Is this quote from an ad for free guillotines?

If the idea of letting others live their lives free from the imposition of your subjective opinions makes you want to go out and get a guillotine, then you don't need a revolution, you need anger management sessions.

I mean, "leech of your success" and "the mob" is the sort of thing a nineteenth century aristocrat would say.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You guys are using "Populism" to mean "authoritarian" hence posts like "they are contradictory". This is not the case because they are not the same thing. Yes, authoritarianism can have populist support and we have seen that in many cases throughout history and populism can be very dangerous for that reason obviously. However, it is must also be stated that all populism is, is a mirror reflection of the views of the establishment or the perceived establishment of course and I would thus note that to be the case and as such the authoritarian aspect comes from the perceived libertine aspect of the establishment.

That being said in terms of opposition to the establishment, libertarianism is very populist simply because it is opposes the establishment and its preference for empowering government. The problem comes when what populism is reflecting in the current time based on that establishment and this is where you get the urge by the likes of the Trumpist and also from well meaning folks like LfromNJ when he says he wants to go to the opposite extreme to oppose the extremism of the left.

The problem with that approach is that it is easy to lose sight of what you are trying to achieve and why you are opposing the left and the establishment to begin with. If you are a libertarian aghast by the erosion of liberty, it makes no sense to throw away the liberty that compelled you to take up the fight in the first place, to carry on that fight. It is no different then the old saying, "Giving up liberty for security" but here it is "giving up liberty for the sake of opposing the other side".

I have cited Edmund Burke a lot in the context of these discussions, but what I have forgotten is that the media and the narrative have bastardized him just as much as anyone else to the point where the first thing that pops in people's heads at that point is John Robert's (seriously, F John Roberts, he is a tool for special interests. Burke didn't give a free pass to establishment/money players, trial of Hastings all that etc). The reason why I refer to Burke is because he tried to reconcile the enlightenment with an understanding that said liberty can become a threat to itself because of human nature. This is a reconciling of traditional conservative beliefs regarding human nature with the gains of the enlightenment and thus taking Ted Cruz at superficial value here, he is thinking much more along the lines of "what I consider to be Burkean Conservatism" (the emphasis matters), how do you preserve liberty from human excess. The exact prescriptions matter less.

That said, there are many thinkers who are now going outside of the Burkean concept, from which (again as I have have defined above, not any dumbass talking head's definition) virtually all of American Conservatism has typically had at least some basis in and exploring a more traditional version that rejects the enlightenment. If you throw in the religious angle, one that often also rejects the glorification of the Glorious Revolution. Michael Barone some ten years ago wrote a book calling the Glorious Revolution, "Our First Revolution", so that event has typically had a rather dominant place in American Conservatism. It is worth peeling back to consider the religious aspect as American Conservatism has typically been defined by protestantism and a more Catholic view of things would certainly cast that whole period in a different light.

Once you reject the enlightenment, the small gov't and individualist angle goes out the window and suddenly you are in communitarian territory or Christian Democracy or even archaic distributist right models that seek inspiration from the days of Medieval Europe.

I don't think that it is possible to go that far as they undermines critical concepts of American traditions stemming from the Revolution. But I do think that the right is certainly headed for a greater degree of economic populism (read as nationalism) for better or for worse simply based on the demographics and it is always probably becoming more and more Catholic over time as well, which could have likewise similar influences pushing in this direction.


You have two demographic forces that means that the right has to balance libertarian and populist urges and that is the increasing non-college nature of the said right's base, which means it is going to be more down market and even less establishment oriented over time. At the same time, younger conservatives and younger Republicans are far, far less authoritarian on issues like war, drugs and other traditional libertarian wheel houses. It seems to me that Ted Cruz is just reading the writing on the wall here.

[John Dule]

It seems our difference is largely a terminological one. I agree with the majority of what you’ve said here (although I think largely unregulated capitalism is not desirable). When I think of libertarian economics, I think of the Austrian School, a fantasy driven by ideology and not mathematical models, which has thankfully never been tried out.

Surely it depends on what the regulations are? The regulatory codes for banking, telecom, and energy companies are all written by industry insiders, and are then approved by politicians who plan to go work in one of those sectors upon their retirement from the public sector. The idea of a company being "too big to fail" is the product of government intervention in the natural evolution of the markets. Using taxpayer dollars to prop up a failing company is illibertarian. Giving massive subsidies to companies like Comcast, which then screw over their customers and provide terrible service, is illibertarian. Creating thousands of pages of regulation that cost millions of dollars to abide by, which ensures that only three or four large companies will be able to compete in an industry, is illibertarian. Bailing out a bank that misled investors and destroyed the savings of millions of Americans is illibertarian. Adopting the exact policies that multinational companies want you to adopt, in the process squeezing out competition, is illibertarian.

I think most people of my political persuasion agree that some amount of government, taxation, and regulation are all necessary to one degree or another. But libertarians do not think that government and big business should "get along"-- quite the contrary, we want them to be at odds with one another. The neoliberal attitude that business and government should work together is what has given us these industries controlled by enormous, bloated multinationals. Hell, the villains in Ayn Rand novels are all big business owners who took corporate subsidies and cooperated with government regulation because they knew it benefitted them. So when libertarians say that we need less regulation, it's not necessarily because they're on the side of corporate interests. Quite the contrary.

I mean, "leech of your success" and "the mob" is the sort of thing a nineteenth century aristocrat would say.

Perhaps your point would come across better if you addressed what your issue is with what I said, rather than playing coy and telling me who I "sound like."

[Alcibiades]

It seems our difference is largely a terminological one. I agree with the majority of what you’ve said here (although I think largely unregulated capitalism is not desirable). When I think of libertarian economics, I think of the Austrian School, a fantasy driven by ideology and not mathematical models, which has thankfully never been tried out.

Surely it depends on what the regulations are? The regulatory codes for banking, telecom, and energy companies are all written by industry insiders, and are then approved by politicians who plan to go work in one of those sectors upon their retirement from the public sector. The idea of a company being "too big to fail" is the product of government intervention in the natural evolution of the markets. Using taxpayer dollars to prop up a failing company is illibertarian. Giving massive subsidies to companies like Comcast, which then screw over their customers and provide terrible service, is illibertarian. Creating thousands of pages of regulation that cost millions of dollars to abide by, which ensures that only three or four large companies will be able to compete in an industry, is illibertarian. Bailing out a bank that misled investors and destroyed the savings of millions of Americans is illibertarian. Adopting the exact policies that multinational companies want you to adopt, in the process squeezing out competition, is illibertarian.

I think most people of my political persuasion agree that some amount of government, taxation, and regulation are all necessary to one degree or another. But libertarians do not think that government and big business should "get along"-- quite the contrary, we want them to be at odds with one another. The neoliberal attitude that business and government should work together is what has given us these industries controlled by enormous, bloated multinationals. Hell, the villains in Ayn Rand novels are all big business owners who took corporate subsidies and cooperated with government regulation because they knew it benefitted them. So when libertarians say that we need less regulation, it's not necessarily because they're on the side of corporate interests. Quite the contrary.

I mean, "leech of your success" and "the mob" is the sort of thing a nineteenth century aristocrat would say.

Perhaps your point would come across better if you addressed what your issue is with what I said, rather than playing coy and telling me who I "sound like."

While you and other libertarians may well be not enamoured with the idea of corporate influence on the economy,  the most influential self-described libertarians of recent years, the Koch brothers, have used such ideas to increase corporate power. In the absence of antitrust regulations, though, monopolies will inevitably form, to name just one example of where regulation is necessary to curb corporate excess and abuses.

[RINO Tom]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

You’re not so dumb to think that number of counties matters, lol.  11% of voters in Texas exit polls were rural ... they’re just not an overly significant segment of the electorate numerically, whether you like it or not.

[Saint Milei]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

You’re not so dumb to think that number of counties matters, lol.  11% of voters in Texas exit polls were rural ... they’re just not an overly significant segment of the electorate numerically, whether you like it or not.

Lol...keep denying rural voters matter. It's why you moderates still don't comprehend why trump lost. Keep that kasich tier perception and see where it gets you

[RINO Tom]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

You’re not so dumb to think that number of counties matters, lol.  11% of voters in Texas exit polls were rural ... they’re just not an overly significant segment of the electorate numerically, whether you like it or not.

Lol...keep denying rural voters matter. It's why you moderates still don't comprehend why trump lost. Keep that kasich tier perception and see where it gets you

I didn't say they didn't matter ... I said there aren't enough of them to rely on them and cater strictly to them.  Then, I gave you an actual piece of evidence for that, and you ignored it.  Lol.

[Saint Milei]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

You’re not so dumb to think that number of counties matters, lol.  11% of voters in Texas exit polls were rural ... they’re just not an overly significant segment of the electorate numerically, whether you like it or not.

Lol...keep denying rural voters matter. It's why you moderates still don't comprehend why trump lost. Keep that kasich tier perception and see where it gets you

I didn't say they didn't matter ... I said there aren't enough of them to rely on them and cater strictly to them.  Then, I gave you an actual piece of evidence for that, and you ignored it.  Lol.

Considering trump catered to them in 2016 which put him over the top and rural votes let ted win in 2018, I can't see how your initial statement or sudden change in argument could possibly be true

[RINO Tom]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

You’re not so dumb to think that number of counties matters, lol.  11% of voters in Texas exit polls were rural ... they’re just not an overly significant segment of the electorate numerically, whether you like it or not.

Lol...keep denying rural voters matter. It's why you moderates still don't comprehend why trump lost. Keep that kasich tier perception and see where it gets you

I didn't say they didn't matter ... I said there aren't enough of them to rely on them and cater strictly to them.  Then, I gave you an actual piece of evidence for that, and you ignored it.  Lol.

Considering trump catered to them in 2016 which put him over the top and rural votes let ted win in 2018, I can't see how your initial statement or sudden change in argument could possibly be true

Yes ... you do.  Because I already stated that the majority of Republican voters in Texas aren’t rural...?

[jaymichaud]

You’re beyond delusional if you think the Democrats are a party of the working class and not just a lifestyle party at this point. HAHAHA jfc.

[zoz]

You’re beyond delusional if you think the Democrats are a party of the working class and not just a lifestyle party at this point. HAHAHA jfc.

[RINO Tom]

You’re beyond delusional if you think the Democrats are a party of the working class and not just a lifestyle party at this point. HAHAHA jfc.

Not sure who you guys think you're snidely talking to, lol ... but as has been said, "working class" has reached the point where it is meaningless (for God's sake, Leonardo DiCaprio would count as a "White working class voter" in the exit polls), and even if we divide Americans by income, poorer White voters are voting Republican, and poorer non-White voters are voting Democratic ... so there isn't a real "party of the 'working class,'" unless you are simply inventing your own definition of what "working class" means, and in that case you're probably also simply transposing an image onto each party of your own choosing, as well, making these images likely just as meaningless.

[Damocles]

Do I get a free cow made out of butter?

[John Dule]

While you and other libertarians may well be not enamoured with the idea of corporate influence on the economy,  the most influential self-described libertarians of recent years, the Koch brothers, have used such ideas to increase corporate power. In the absence of antitrust regulations, though, monopolies will inevitably form, to name just one example of where regulation is necessary to curb corporate excess and abuses.

Ehhhh, most examples of corporate monopolies typically involve government intervention either in the form of favorable regulatory policy or plain subsidies. The remaining cases can often be attributed to a company developing some sort of innovation that grants it a temporary monopoly on that technology. In any case, I won't bore you with a "B-but that's not real libertarianism!" argument; I'll just say that it's worth acknowledging that plenty of self-described libertarians out there hate the Koch goblins and everything they stand for. Libertarianism isn't a monolith, and a good chunk of the people who call themselves libertarians are just horrible people who want ideological cover for their racist, authoritarian, or religious views.

[Person Man]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

Atlanta is 50 percent black.......and not rural america...

Racist.

[Person Man]

You’re beyond delusional if you think the Democrats are a party of the working class and not just a lifestyle party at this point. HAHAHA jfc.

Not sure who you guys think you're snidely talking to, lol ... but as has been said, "working class" has reached the point where it is meaningless (for God's sake, Leonardo DiCaprio would count as a "White working class voter" in the exit polls), and even if we divide Americans by income, poorer White voters are voting Republican, and poorer non-White voters are voting Democratic ... so there isn't a real "party of the 'working class,'" unless you are simply inventing your own definition of what "working class" means, and in that case you're probably also simply transposing an image onto each party of your own choosing, as well, making these images likely just as meaningless.

America is great, isn't it? It's a society with a vibrant class system but with no classes. I remember that argument with JJ like it was yesterday. Atlas gold.

[John Dule]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

Atlanta is 50 percent black.......and not rural america...

Racist.

Is this like a joke or something?

[Mr. Smith]

Populism and libertarianism are about as opposed to each other as it gets.

Very true. Most people want to leech off of your success while simultaneously telling you what you can and can't do with your personal life. That's why the mob must be resisted at all costs.

Most people want to tell others what to do because they got lucky and chalk it off success, simultaneously telling you how to become like them as the only way, while also telling you that you'll never have the chance that way. And they'll dig into your personal life while getting pis&y when the shoe drops the other way.

But there are those that know this sh&^ is just wrong. They are usually dismissed as a mob.

You gotta resist the mob hating elite at all costs for exactly these reasons.

[Yellowhammer]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

The welfare class is not the same thing as the working class

[RINO Tom]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

The welfare class is not the same thing as the working class

So White people on welfare aren't working class?  Anyway, again regarding the OP, my thoughts in a more abbreviated manner...

- You likely aren't going to get the Democratic Party running to the economic right of the GOP within our lifetimes (I would argue they never have); that isn't what younger Democrats want, it isn't what the party leaders want and it's not what our average AMERICAN wants ... it's a fantasy of a minority of "Obama-Trump" and "Romney-Clinton" types (as in, not even a majority of these types) who are especially attached to their new camp ... so, I think you will always have at least some "pro-business" aspects to the GOP and economically left-of-center aspects to the Democrats.  That does NOT mean the GOP won't get more populist, as I believe it will, but it DOES mean that it likely won't actually provide economic policies more beneficial to the working class than the Democrats, at least on paper ... its support from working class people will likely still be circumstantial or reliant on social and cultural issues, which is fine!
- With that in mind, "populism" is NOT synonymous with an unsophisticated tone.  Someone who is an economic centrist and a hardcore social conservative (stereotypically "populist," it seems) could speak eloquently, seem dignified and not sound like Trump does.  I think that is what you will see in the future for the GOP, which I also believe will allow it to appeal to additional voters besides its current group (which, I might remind everyone here, is still made up of a LOT of middle class, upper-middle class and upper class Whites ... trends speak to how things are changing, not the current landscape).

[John Dule]

Populism and libertarianism are about as opposed to each other as it gets.

Very true. Most people want to leech off of your success while simultaneously telling you what you can and can't do with your personal life. That's why the mob must be resisted at all costs.

Most people want to tell others what to do because they got lucky and chalk it off success, simultaneously telling you how to become like them as the only way, while also telling you that you'll never have the chance that way. And they'll dig into your personal life while getting pis&y when the shoe drops the other way.

But there are those that know this sh&^ is just wrong. They are usually dismissed as a mob.

You gotta resist the mob hating elite at all costs for exactly these reasons.

Luck is a fiction invented by socialists to explain their failures.

[Person Man]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

The welfare class is not the same thing as the working class

So White people on welfare aren't working class?  Anyway, again regarding the OP, my thoughts in a more abbreviated manner...

- You likely aren't going to get the Democratic Party running to the economic right of the GOP within our lifetimes (I would argue they never have); that isn't what younger Democrats want, it isn't what the party leaders want and it's not what our average AMERICAN wants ... it's a fantasy of a minority of "Obama-Trump" and "Romney-Clinton" types (as in, not even a majority of these types) who are especially attached to their new camp ... so, I think you will always have at least some "pro-business" aspects to the GOP and economically left-of-center aspects to the Democrats.  That does NOT mean the GOP won't get more populist, as I believe it will, but it DOES mean that it likely won't actually provide economic policies more beneficial to the working class than the Democrats, at least on paper ... its support from working class people will likely still be circumstantial or reliant on social and cultural issues, which is fine!
- With that in mind, "populism" is NOT synonymous with an unsophisticated tone.  Someone who is an economic centrist and a hardcore social conservative (stereotypically "populist," it seems) could speak eloquently, seem dignified and not sound like Trump does.  I think that is what you will see in the future for the GOP, which I also believe will allow it to appeal to additional voters besides its current group (which, I might remind everyone here, is still made up of a LOT of middle class, upper-middle class and upper class Whites ... trends speak to how things are changing, not the current landscape).

That's believable but I don't think there will absolutely be no overlap. Even in relatively modernity you still have a handful of elected officials that overlap on class and even war issues though I imagine we may see less of it on racial and religious issues.

Maybe a voter in the Hawley mold would have been the quintessential swing voter between 1933/53 and 1973/95.

[KaiserDave]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

The welfare class is not the same thing as the working class

Woof woof

[Orwell]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

The welfare class is not the same thing as the working class I am a racist sh**tbag

[Alcibiades]

Populism and libertarianism are about as opposed to each other as it gets.

Very true. Most people want to leech off of your success while simultaneously telling you what you can and can't do with your personal life. That's why the mob must be resisted at all costs.

Most people want to tell others what to do because they got lucky and chalk it off success, simultaneously telling you how to become like them as the only way, while also telling you that you'll never have the chance that way. And they'll dig into your personal life while getting pis&y when the shoe drops the other way.

But there are those that know this sh&^ is just wrong. They are usually dismissed as a mob.

You gotta resist the mob hating elite at all costs for exactly these reasons.

Luck is a fiction invented by socialists to explain their failures.

Yes, because you absolutely have control over whether you’re born rich or poor.