American Exceptionalism in a New Era. This is a conference volume from the Hoover Institute. John Cochrane was one of the participants in the conference, and I found about the book from his blog.
The conference was held in the fall of 2016, which means that the papers were prepared before the election, and perhaps even before it was clear that Donald Trump would be the nominee. Although there is a pattern of pessimism that runs through most of the essays, what strikes me is that the tone is less apocalyptic than what we are seeing from conservative intellectuals today. Victor Davis Hanson is one of the essayists, and although he plenty dour in his piece, he comes across to me as more sober and less strident than he does in his post-election writing.
If I am correct that conservative intellectuals are more anxious now than they were before the election, then I think that this may be justified. Whatever conservative gains might be made in the next year or two, the most important consequence could turn out to be the hardening of the hard left. For example, the WSJ has a story about the tax bill, pointing out that it has no bipartisan support, has many provisions that expire automatically, do that tax policy could be jerked in a very different direction in another few years.
I think that many conservative intellectuals believe, at least subliminally, that the Donald Trump wind will reap a very treacherous whirlwind.
the most important consequence could turn out to be the hardening of the hard left.
I could be wrong but I still think the Democrats move more towards a Clinton Left Center Party as the voters they are gaining in 2017 (and starting since 2008 Obama) have been from the suburbs. I know Bernie is Extremely popular among all Democrats but there is still a number of voters that are not sold on all his ideas. And realize some of his popularity in the Democrats 2016 Primary was the field was cleared out. The Primary had 5 Candidates – 2 of which were not good ones, Webb* & Chafee. (*Like most things Jim Webb, he had great potential in either party but somebody who laments The Confederate Flag is NOT going to go anywhere in Democratic Party.)
Also, the Republican tax cut long run raises Middle Class taxes after a couple of tax cut years so I expect this be the BIG issue to run on in 2018 all the while Trump pushes for Trumpian candidates to run on stopping MS-13 gangs.
I still say it will be problem that Trump is he ran as a right center for the WWC voters on Social Security and Medicare while being Richard Gaphardt on trade. And he has not governed this way so these voters won’t vote against Trump in 2020 but they are not showing up for Special Elections and, maybe, 2018 Midterms.
I don’t think there’s been any “trend discontinuity” with regards to hardening political trends on the left, so ‘consequence’ is probably not an apt description.
Consdier, in the nomination process in the last election, for which most people thought the Democrat would be the shoe-in victor, Bernie Sanders nearly won the nomination on a forthrightly “Socialist” platform, and judging from recent reports, he may have come close to pulling it off in a genuinely fair fight against Clinton.
Here is a test: were most observers predicting moderation of progressive positions and sidelining of the hard left, before they ever thought Donald Trump actually had a chance? Or were they salivating at the prospect of a New New Deal like Mark Tushnet in his infamous blog post, “Abandoning Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism”? The left seemed geared for total conquest, not for offering up surrender with generous terms.
I agree, but Democrats seem to believe, genuinely believe, that Obama, Biden and Hillary are centrist clones of Dwight Eisenhower (Bernie might be slightly to the left of that – like Hubert Humphrey circa 1960), and that anyone who disagrees with this assessment is a certifiable loon. How do you have a productive conversation with people like this? You can’t.
Yes. It really is mind-boggling that the Democrats and the DLC had the formula for a permanent presidency in the 90’s and they let it go so quickly.
Al Gore would have been president if he had simply run as the third term of Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton would have been president if she had run as the third term of Bill Clinton.
But Democrats don’t seem to be constitutionally able to hold the center-left position and reap the returns of both the left and the anti-socially-conservative center. Even the “moderate” ones choose to pander to increasingly irrelevant and anti-moderate interest groups on the far left, alienating virtually everyone who is not among them.
Obama did not run as the third term of Bill Clinton, and he won twice. Of course, many voters seem to have taken him at his word (and that of the media) that he was a “centrist” (which seems to now be redefined as a Democrat who does not participate in public burnings of the American flag). As you point out, neither Gore nor Hillary ran as Bill Clinton’s third term, but both won the popular vote.
And, though Bill Clinton ran as a centrist, he did not actually start to govern as one until after the ’94 election.
Obama (or at least the Dem party) moved away from centrism after he defeated Romney. 2014-2016 was a leftist singularity strong enough to put Trump in the White House.
The left never really liked Bill’s 1990s strategy. They put up with it to win elections. Now with more minorities they don’t have to anymore (Trump was a narrow miscalculation). The Dems are as centrist as electoral realities require them to be, which will increasingly mean not much.
Leaving out Bernie, Didn’t Obama govern like a left center and not that much different than Bill Clinton? It is true bascially a President that loses the House in their second year (very common reality) mostly nullifies the President to make significant changes.
In terms of Trump, we forget he ran as a right center candidate with a extreme dislike of Immigration. He campaigned on stopping dumb wars, protecting Social Security & Medicare, Health Insurance for everyone and like Richard Gepgardt on trade with China & Mexico. (He also vowed to protect Medicaid but I assuming he did not understand what that was.)
Whatever can be done with 50 votes can be undone with them for the most part as it begs to be. The short term focus has been overwhelming while the long term will come at a high cost.
Agreed. Immigration is the snitch. Once you reach the demographic tipping point Dems can overturn any bill you might pass today.
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/12/immigration-is-golden-snitch.html
“the most important consequence could turn out to be the hardening of the hard left.”
This seems like “that will never happen! and when it does you bigots will deserve it.”
GOP voters understood that immigration would lead to an out of control one party leftist state. Conservative intellectuals claimed that would never happen…and when it does happen it will be your fault for trying to stop it from happening.
So GOP voters were so worried about immigration, they nominated and elected . . . another president who is reducing marginal tax rates on the wealthy.
But, hey, Trump sure is sticking it to brainless morning TV news show talking heads!
I don’t like the tax bill, but can you imagine a different scenario under president Jeb Bush? It’s pretty clear that the same Republicans Trump defeated in the primary are the ones writing this tax bill.
On his signature issues, immigration and SC justices, he’s followed through or at least made an attempt.
He’s also followed through on a non-legislative initiative, letting people know its OK to stand up for their dignity and rights against leftists. Heck, even acknowledging that they even have human dignity and are something more then the evil privileged oppressors that should just die off already. This was definitely one of the biggest failings of the groveling wing of the GOP.
What makes you think I wanted Jeb “Chipmunk Cheeks” Bush? I supported Cruz, who at least does not the see the president’s role as providing entertainment for halfwits. FWIW, I think Cruz, for all his flaws, would have been better on immigration than Trump. I know you disagree.
I don’t agree with you about Trump having “followed through or made an attempt” on immigration. True, we have started enforcing existing immigration laws again, but who knows how long this will last. No wall (which Trump never mentions anymore) and no change in the law appears to be forthcoming. The “travel ban,” even upheld, is proving a meaningless distraction engineered by the apparently nihilistic Bannon. Trump now hates the only serious immigration hawk in his cabinet – no secret who that is – for having failed to rescue Trump from the “Russia” mess Trump gratuitously created for himself. (To be clear, no, I don’t believe there was any illegal “collusion” – but Trump has done everything in his power to help the Democrats sell their phony narrative.)
If people need a vulgar, self-absorbed performance artist like Trump to tell them it’s okay to stand up to the Left, then we are already lost. And we are not going to defeat the Left just with the support of Trump’s uninformed, irrational hardcore base – who apparently will support if he increases legal immigration to 10 million per year, which I would not put past him.
Plowing every dollar one can into cutting the corp tax rate is pretty Ted Cruz. Cruz is known for being a GS sociopath. He is in fact voting for this tax bill if you hadn’t noticed.
I agree that Trump should be judged on whether there is an actual Wall at the end of four years. Beyond that he’s the only one that attempted to control immigration at all. The GOPe is the party of amnesty. It has been for decades.
The travel ban is one of the most common sense immigration controls one has ever seen (ban travel from basket case third world countries with a history of supporting terrorism and not cooperating with western authorities). What are we giving up? These countries aren’t exactly producing most of the worlds most gifted people.
Long term I agree with Sean Trende that there is no long term One Party domination of demographics. And in terms of Immigration issues, until 2012 it really was not an easy Party divide between Democrats and Republicans. George Bush Jr and Ronald Reagan were both relatively pro-Immigration and Ronald Reagan literally did sign the last amnesty agreement. And remember Geogre Bush Jr. did win 44% of the Hispanic-America vote in 2004 so this is still recent history. (Yes being Texas governor helped but Hispanic-Americans in Texas supporter Bush highly.)
In terms of Immigration:
1) The Mexican illegal immigration is significantly down since 2008 and it is increasingly Asian Immigrants with over-stayed Work or Student Visas.
2) It is hard to convince me that 5 SW border states (including Nevada) have really economically suffer from all this immigration. Texas through California is not the most economic stagnant areas of the nation. (And yes, the immigrants will go to where the jobs are.)
3) It really was not that long ago California was heavy Republican itself.
Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, not 44% (that comes from a single exit poll). There is actually an in depth report on this out there on the net. In addition to running up the score in Texas much of the support came from the evangelical turnout machine getting Hispanics at mega churches to vote R. But the GOPe hates evangelicals and is glad they are getting crushed in the culture war. They also got a lot of turnout from Cubans who have historically voted R because of Castro, but they have been drifting leftward every election for a long time and especially now that he is dead. Finally, there was this little thing called the housing bubble in 2004 that temporarily made things seem really good for Hispanics, but that didn’t work out in the long run. So its hard to see where this Hispanic support is going to come from.
Arch Never Trumpers McCain and Romney saw huge declines in support from Hispanics and other minorities. With Romney bottoming out hard on minority support, far below what Trump ended up getting. So obviously Trump isn’t the main issue here.
Bottom line is this. If you getting less then 50% of the vote your going to lose elections. The GOPe has never been able to crack 50% on minorities, which means it has no future if there are more of them around.
Sorry about the 40/44%…
1) Sure Bush ran up the score in Texas where obviously Hispanic-American like Bush as a governor! To me, I
see the causation of George Bush (opposed to Pete Wilson in 1994) campaigning for H-A votes in 1994 & 1998 helped him perform better in 2000 and 2004. Simply saying Republicans can’t win H-A seems self-defeating IMO.
2) McCain saw drop of 9% of Hispanic-Americans just as he saw a drop of 9% in the general election. So I don’t see a huge H-A drop here in 2008. In 2012 Primary, is when Republicans started focusing against Immigration and Romney tripped all over himself on it. (That H-A really liked Obama! Exit polls showed Trump did slightly better than Romney although I suspect some Cuban Americans helped here.)
3) Conservative want to crush Evangelicals? Republicans need Evangelicals more than any other voter and they lost Alabama as evangelicals had a mini-sit down strike and some voted Doug Jones. Conservatives need Evangelicals and they do support them for the most part.
4) In terms of history, the voters most effected by the infamous 1994 Prop. 187 election were not H-A but the various Asian-American voters. Those voters are the ones that turned the hardest against Republicans in California! I know there are other factors. (Note some of the early 1990s Cali political changes were movement away from defense spending manufacturing.)
1) GWB didn’t win a majority of Hispanics in Texas though. He just did a little better there because all presidential candidates do a little better in their home states. Less then 50% is still a loser.
I don’t see it as “self defeating”. I see it as a law of biological reality not much different from the law of gravity. I submit all empirical evidence from around the world as defense.
Self defeating is importing the people who defeat you and claiming you can turn them when its obvious you never can. The problem in CA is they didn’t keep deporting Hispanics until they won elections. People who are deported can’t vote. Immigration lost CA.
2) Bottom line is the most anti-Trump, pro-immigration, amnesty waving, politically correct racist purgers couldn’t get it up with the Hispanic vote over decades of elections. Every single Republican has failed despite a sustained campaign to do so. Empirical evidence shows its impossible.
3) The GOPe is mostly a mixture of libertarian-ish corporatists who despise most of the social issues they publicly support. Like Obama in 2008, they say what they have to say and wait till its politically possible to “evolve my views”. There are many recordings of GOP politicians openly despising evangelicals and religious social views. Trump may not be a Christian, but he doesn’t pretend to be and he followed through on his legislative promises to evangelicals far more then the GOPe has for some time now.
4) Asian voters that came from communist countries did indeed vote Republican (as did Cubans). However, they have been moving leftward every election since the Cold War ended and China became capitalist in all but name. This explains most of the math behind the change in Asian voting patterns. They aren’t that different from similar whites (young professional urban whites on the coasts aren’t exactly very conservative).
The problem in CA is they didn’t keep deporting Hispanics until they won elections. People who are deported can’t vote. Immigration lost CA.
It was Immigration that Ronald Reagan tended to agree with! In reality most of the illegal immigration until the 1990s was seasonal agriculture so a lot of the illegal immigrants cross the border back to Mexico. (There were stories of employers would notify the authorities when to deport back in the day.) After 1990, (lots of farms in Mexico were lost then) we saw longer term illegal immigrants.
In reality, the primary reason why the Hispanic-American is increasing is not immigration but H-A have larger families and 1980s/1990s they had a baby boom when the white and Asian-Americans had lower fertility. (My neighbor has some descendants dating back before the 1900s while his wife had an illegal alien grandparent.) Look up Lyman Stone notes on this!
3) The GOPe is mostly a mixture of libertarian-ish corporatists who despise most of the social issues they publicly support.
I don’t agree that as most successful business people tend to live relatively moral lives and they wish the poor would follow. It is just religion place in the community does not give much economic benefit to people who attend.
Reagen isn’t a saint. Looking back there was a lot to disapprove of with Reagan, and this is the biggest one. The man gets a lot of credit for trends that were under place within the entire OECD in the 1980s.
I agree the problem is the descendants of original illegal immigrants. It’s going to take a lot of deportations, but I don’t think people who were born here because their parents came illegally have a legitimate claim on citizenship. This would be a retroactive change of our birthright citizenship, but I don’t believe in birthright citizenship and its not a universal even within the OECD. The disruption is obvious, but when your in the position of becoming an oppressed minority in your own country you do what you have to do.
If you deported every descendent of an illegal immigrant (even if they were later granted amnesty) and all those who used colonial loopholes to be citizens (Puerto Ricans) you could make the numbers work. These people’s parents never should have been here in the first place.