Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dennis Goldford's avatar

You seem to want to take issue with almost everything I write here. Fair enough. I would ask you to note, however, that the proper name of the party you oppose is the Democratic Party—not the "Democrat Party." Yes, the Republican Party has certainly changed since the 1960s, but even as it's become a Trumpist party there are still elements of what you call the "elite globalists" in it. It's no longer a Ronald Reagan party either. Both parties are in the process of trying to figure out who they are and what they stand for as liberals and conservatives; the Democrats are typically a mess even if the Republicans are to a great extent MAGA folks now. The latter, as I have written, are attempting to, in your words, "truly become the party of the working class" that the Democrats to their peril have ignored for a long time. The question will be, how long and successfully will Republicans be able to do that? But, yes, both parties are in a period of major flux.

Expand full comment
Dean Weitenhagen's avatar

What a hoot: “conservative stalwarts as National Review and The Wall Street Journal”. “Conservative David Brooks”? Yes. All “conservative” by 1960 standards. Not today. American conservatism has changed as, sadly, has the American Democrat party.

Republicans have truly become the party of the working class while Democrats have taken up the mantle of no-holds-bared abortion, equity - not equality, continued funding/fighting foreign wars and supporting violent protest: witness BLM and Tesla burnings.

Oh, Republicans today are still Republicans, but we’ve thrown out the elite globalists (mostly), turned away from the Romney/Bush style of “good ole boys - wink, wink” and come to realize the average man and woman in these beautiful United States need, no, deserves help from the crushing globalist agenda. It’s simply an updated and realistically-refreshed brand of conservatism.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts