Conservative Ideology 2024: NOTHING BUT LIES AND FEARMONGERING

[RedFromMI]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

[cradleandshoot]

Funny how those who complain about immigrants maintaining their cultural heritage in America are never talking about St. Patrick's Day.

So I'm guessing you don't like corn beef and cabbage as well? I'm Irish and German by my heritage. My grandmother, whose relatives came off the boat from Ireland never ate corn beef and cabbage as a traditional food. They were potato people, hence why the Irish potato rot forced them to immigrate to the US. The German side of me still loves Knockwurst, Kraut and potatoes and carrots. Maybe you should look in the fields for a 4 leaf clover and see if there is a pot o gold at the end of the rainbow. In doing so you better not tick off any Leprechauns in the process.

C&S will be a Teaching Assistant in Point Missing 101: Intro to the GOP Politics of Immigration.

I wouldn't know what the GOP politics of immigration is about. I'm not a Republican to remind you for the 1 millionth time. Do all you liberals have this same problem with reading comprehension? If there was a point you were focusing on then don't mention cornbeef and cabbage while trying to make it. Duuuuuuh.

[cradleandshoot]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

[RedFromMI]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

Sure it is relevant there - but the total lean of the state would still get a big D majority, for the most part. But if many current D districts that are overwhelming D get changed to marginal D, then reasonable Rs can win - and then the sense of policy has to change.

The same thing can happen in R dominated states - make more districts competitive and the policies that get favored move to the center, and getting something done would become more valuable as a campaign issue, rather than making the most extreme parts of either party happy.

[cradleandshoot]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

Sure it is relevant there - but the total lean of the state would still get a big D majority, for the most part. But if many current D districts that are overwhelming D get changed to marginal D, then reasonable Rs can win - and then the sense of policy has to change.

The same thing can happen in R dominated states - make more districts competitive and the policies that get favored move to the center, and getting something done would become more valuable as a campaign issue, rather than making the most extreme parts of either party happy.

The Republican party is dead and buried in NYS. I have to disagree with you profoundly. Whatever happens in NYS, whatever road it chooses to travel down will be determined by the Democrats that run the state. There are a few isolated communities in NYS that are still solid republican. Their input means nothing to the Democrats that run the state.

[RedFromMI]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

Sure it is relevant there - but the total lean of the state would still get a big D majority, for the most part. But if many current D districts that are overwhelming D get changed to marginal D, then reasonable Rs can win - and then the sense of policy has to change.

The same thing can happen in R dominated states - make more districts competitive and the policies that get favored move to the center, and getting something done would become more valuable as a campaign issue, rather than making the most extreme parts of either party happy.

The Republican party is dead and buried in NYS. I have to disagree with you profoundly. Whatever happens in NYS, whatever road it chooses to travel down will be determined by the Democrats that run the state. There are a few isolated communities in NYS that are still solid republican. Their input means nothing to the Democrats that run the state.

It is similarly so in CA, where there are independent commissions who set the districts, and the top two vote getters in a non-partisan primary run for the election in the fall. The reason that both these parties are more or less defunct is they are not meeting the needs of their constituents - and what R districts are left are only for the extremists too often.

That does not mean it is hopeless - but it DOES mean that the parties in those states need to bend to match their constituents desires.

Joe Manchin would be Republican in most states, but he can win in WV precisely because he is conservative enough to do so there. Democrats in Washington might be frustrated with him because he is well to the right of pretty much all of them, but if not for him, it would be a Republican majority. So the Ds have to live with it, and figure out how to get something done with that situation.

[Peter Brown]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

Sure it is relevant there - but the total lean of the state would still get a big D majority, for the most part. But if many current D districts that are overwhelming D get changed to marginal D, then reasonable Rs can win - and then the sense of policy has to change.

The same thing can happen in R dominated states - make more districts competitive and the policies that get favored move to the center, and getting something done would become more valuable as a campaign issue, rather than making the most extreme parts of either party happy.

The Republican party is dead and buried in NYS. I have to disagree with you profoundly. Whatever happens in NYS, whatever road it chooses to travel down will be determined by the Democrats that run the state. There are a few isolated communities in NYS that are still solid republican. Their input means nothing to the Democrats that run the state.

Man, 15% income tax rates in NYC…that’s on top of a federal rate of 37%! You’re forking over more than 50% of your earnings.

Or you could save all that state and city tax living in Florida, Tennessee, Wyoming, Texas, South Dakota, Washington, and New Hampshire.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxe ... -state-tax

[seacoaster]

By a vote of 424-8, the House easily passes bill to revoke Russia’s and Belarus’s normal trade status, sending bill to Senate. The lone NO votes:
Boebert
Massie
Gaetz
Biggs
Greene
Bishop
Roy
Grothman

[NattyBohChamps04]

New Secret Service report details growing incel terrorism threat

"The federal government on Tuesday released a study on the growing terrorism threat from men who call themselves "anti-feminists" or "involuntary celibates" and draw motivation for violence from their inability to develop relationships with women. Since 2014, attacks inspired by the "incel movement" and spanning the U.S. and Canada have left dozens dead."

A few R congresscritters and a number of news outlets espouse the belief that manhood is in serious jeopardy in America, similar to the statement from one of the murderers in the article. You sometimes see it regurgitated around here.

It's certainly easy enough to find plenty of angry young men posting on various forums around the internet, blaming everyone else for their problems.

[MDlaxfan76]

By a vote of 424-8, the House easily passes bill to revoke Russia’s and Belarus’s normal trade status, sending bill to Senate. The lone NO votes:
Boebert
Massie
Gaetz
Biggs
Greene
Bishop
Roy
Grothman

Does anyone on here have a remotely rational and coherent 'positive' explanation of why these "Americans" voted this way?

[FannOLax]

By a vote of 424-8, the House easily passes bill to revoke Russia’s and Belarus’s normal trade status, sending bill to Senate. The lone NO votes:
Boebert
Massie
Gaetz
Biggs
Greene
Bishop
Roy
Grothman

Does anyone on here have a remotely rational and coherent 'positive' explanation of why these "Americans" voted this way?

How about, "those eight vaguely recall how for years Tronald Dump talked up Putin and said we should be friends with Russia. So out of blind and continuing loyalty to Dump, they vote against something that goes against our friendly Russian dictator."

[MDlaxfan76]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

Sure it is relevant there - but the total lean of the state would still get a big D majority, for the most part. But if many current D districts that are overwhelming D get changed to marginal D, then reasonable Rs can win - and then the sense of policy has to change.

The same thing can happen in R dominated states - make more districts competitive and the policies that get favored move to the center, and getting something done would become more valuable as a campaign issue, rather than making the most extreme parts of either party happy.

The Republican party is dead and buried in NYS. I have to disagree with you profoundly. Whatever happens in NYS, whatever road it chooses to travel down will be determined by the Democrats that run the state. There are a few isolated communities in NYS that are still solid republican. Their input means nothing to the Democrats that run the state.

Man, 15% income tax rates in NYC…that’s on top of a federal rate of 37%! You’re forking over more than 50% of your earnings.

Or you could save all that state and city tax living in Florida, Tennessee, Wyoming, Texas, South Dakota, Washington, and New Hampshire.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxe ... -state-tax

I realize that math isn't your strong suit, but even those earning over $25 million don't get to 15% combined New York State and City taxes.

But it's indeed more expensive to be making a $ million + a year in NYC than lots of places around the country. Nice problem to have, of course.

[ardilla secreta]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

As a NYer how could you be unaware that the decline of population in the state is coming from the rural counties where many of the registered republicans reside. Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse all had increases. Maybe you could move to Wayne Co to be with your people and bolster the population.

[cradleandshoot]

That is why you need competitive districts as much as possible. If a politician fears losing because s/he cannot attract enough votes from the other side/independents, the policies advocated will begin to change to reflect the actual electorate.

Our current methods of extreme gerrymandering, however, create so many safe seats that the extremes rule.

The fix is obvious. But the incumbents don't want that - they would have to work too hard at pleasing their constituents with reasonable approaches to government.

I live in NYS, none of what you are saying is relevant here in the peoples republic of the empire state. I can't prove it but I'm 99% certain that gerrymandering was perfected here. I do know that the Democrat party determines every freaking policy in the peoples republic. I do know that a significant number of New Yorkers now reside in other states. Rumor is that the mass exodus is because too many people were singing too loudly in church on Sunday.

As a NYer how could you be unaware that the decline of population in the state is coming from the rural counties where many of the registered republicans reside. Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse all had increases. Maybe you could move to Wayne Co to be with your people and bolster the population.

And you can go have coitus with yourself. Except you are probably incapable of figuring out the technical issues involved. Them Wayne county boys gots them some bulls you can hook up with. They will give you great pleasure indeed...

[seacoaster]

Looks like a good, thoughtful and substantive debate last night in the Ohio GOP race for United States Senator:

https://twitter.com/natalie_allison/sta ... 1932907523

Chapter 12: Leadership Bankruptcy.

[seacoaster]

Interesting thread:

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/statu ... 7el-QpAAAA

[FannOLax]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... -rcna20180

The far right wing of the Republican party is battling the more traditional majority over U.S. interests as Russia continues to bombard Ukraine.

March 20, 2022, 8:52 AM EDT
By Peter Nicholas, Jonathan Allen and Allan Smith
They are a distinct minority in their own party and, for that matter, their country: Republican holdouts amid an ever-widening consensus that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine poses a mortal threat to American interests.

A far right wing of the Republican Party tightly bound to former President Donald Trump is fighting to push the GOP toward the “America First” isolationism that underpinned his 2016 presidential bid.

For the first time since Trump’s rise, his party is pushing back.

That much was clear from the House vote Thursday on a bill ending normal trade relations with Russia as punishment for attacking Ukraine. A total of 202 Republicans joined with 222 Democrats in voting to allow the Biden administration to raise tariffs on Russia, a rare bipartisan consensus in an era of fierce polarization.

Eight Republicans voted against the measure, including Trump loyalists like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. In a speech on the House floor Thursday, Greene gave a succinct summary of an America First argument that has been getting little traction in the face of deepening sympathy for the Ukrainians’ suffering. After objecting to the abundant attention the war is getting, she said that what “real Americans care about are gas prices that they can’t afford,” inflation and security along the southern border.

Echoing that sentiment, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, whom Trump has endorsed for re-election, explained her vote: “Congress keeps focusing on distractions abroad and not our own challenges brought on by Joe Biden at home.”

Both Greene and Boebert are part of a loose band of conservative lawmakers, pundits and foreign policy thinkers who, under the banner “America First,” see the war as peripheral to so-called pocketbook concerns important to families. What’s more, some of them argue that GOP leaders are reverting to Bush-era neoconservative positions that enmeshed the U.S. in "unwinnable wars."

“We have so many problems in this country that are a bigger concern to our citizens and should be a bigger concern to our leaders than what’s happening in Russia and Ukraine,” J.D. Vance, a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, told NBC News.

“Our voters do not want us to sacrifice American blood and treasure in Ukraine,” he added. “They want us to look after our own people first.”

Polling suggests otherwise. Surveys show that majorities of Americans are prepared to accept financial sacrifices if it means helping Ukraine defend its sovereignty. And polls suggest that Americans are absorbed in coverage of the war and inspired by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s resistance to the Russian siege.

That puts them at odds with another America First-er who’s gotten Trump’s endorsement, Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina. The 26-year-old congressman called Zelenskyy a “thug.”

An Economist/YouGov poll from earlier this month found the overwhelming majority of Republicans approve of sending weapons to Ukraine. A Quinnipiac poll released this month showed that more than two out of three Republicans support a ban on Russian oil imports, even if that means higher gas prices at home. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, GOP voters viewed him with contempt.

A Republican Senate aide, granted anonymity because the aide was not authorized to speak on the issue, told NBC News the war in Ukraine, and the response from isolationist-leaning conservatives, “has shown some of the online right to be kind of out of touch,” adding this conservative faction is “struggling” with its message in light of Russia’s unprovoked assault.

“I think if it were to turn into a … war with American lives at stake, it wouldn’t be very popular,” the aide said, “but it is also obviously jarring to the average person and people don’t like the U.S. to just take a passive role in the world.

Undeterred, the "America First" adherents believe that Trump’s approach to foreign policy is durable and denied they were in retreat. Steve Bannon, a former senior adviser in the Trump White House, said on his podcast earlier this month that “no Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine … until we get a full briefing and disclosure of exactly what is going on with facts.” In a text message, Bannon said that “of course” he sees public opinion on the right shifting to his stance on Ukraine, adding, “it’s changed already.” Asked for examples of such a shift, he did not respond.

Rachel Bovard, policy director at the Conservative Partnership Institute and a proponent of limited U.S. engagement abroad, said that American Conservative magazine would hold an “emergency” conference in Washington on March 31 to discuss Ukraine. She said there had been a worrisome “resurgence” of neoconservative thinking among Republicans.

“The America First foreign policy has made a lot of inroads,” she said in an interview. Establishment Republicans, she added, have “failed.”

“They’re speaking to a generation of us that watched them fail,” she said. U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both failed, she said, and “now, they’re making the same argument about Ukraine to a highly skeptical audience.”

Trump’s America First credo was never so much a coherent foreign policy doctrine as a useful slogan. Starting with his 2016 campaign, Trump embraced a more isolationist strain in American foreign policy thinking that went back to the nation’s founding.

Good relations with autocratic leaders, coupled with Trump’s unpredictability as commander in chief, would help deter foreign aggression, his allies argued. America might vacate the NATO alliance unless member countries upped their defense spending, he threatened.

Those ideas struck a chord with Trump voters who agreed that a more immediate threat to America’s future was a porous southern border and trade deals that wiped out jobs.

But America First could also devolve into "Trump First," his critics contend. Ukraine may be the most famous example. Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 centered on his efforts to persuade Zelenskyy to investigate a domestic political rival, Joe Biden, at a time when Ukraine needed weapons and support from the United States. (Trump was acquitted in the Senate.)

John Bolton, a former national security adviser under Trump who has emerged as a staunch critic of the ex-president, said: “Trump thought about Ukraine through the prism of ‘How does this benefit Donald Trump?’ Not ‘What strategic threats do we face?’”

For some nativists, America First means white Christians first. H.R. McMaster, another Trump national security adviser, wrote about this phenomenon in his 2020 book, “Battlegrounds.” Some of the strategists surrounding Trump felt a “peculiar sense of kinship with and affinity for Russian nationalists,” McMaster wrote. In this view, Putin was standing up for a Christian and Caucasian culture that he saw as under threat.

Last month, Greene and Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona spoke at the America First Political Action Conference. (Gosar addressed the gathering of white nationalists in a prerecorded video.) The organizer, Nicholas Fuentes, is a white nationalist activist who, before introducing Greene, urged support for Putin in the war with Ukraine. The crowd then chanted “Putin! Putin!”

The two Republican legislative leaders, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both condemned Greene and Gosar for their attendance.

It is not especially clear what America First means in practice. Newt Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker who has written a book called “Understanding Trump,” defined the concept in vague terms. Every policy discussion, he said in an interview, starts from the standpoint of “What’s in America’s best interests?”

But what are those interests and who gets to define them? Many experts argue that Ukraine’s survival matters to the U.S. If Putin conquers Ukraine, an emboldened Russia might then carry the war to neighboring NATO countries, setting off a direct clash between nuclear-armed nations. Under that argument, avoiding a third world war by stopping Putin in Ukraine would be squarely within America’s interests — or at least as much as cheap gas.

“When we stood with the Europeans, we had three generations of peace and prosperity in Europe,” said Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland. “That’s being challenged.”

[seacoaster]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... -rcna20180

The far right wing of the Republican party is battling the more traditional majority over U.S. interests as Russia continues to bombard Ukraine.

March 20, 2022, 8:52 AM EDT
By Peter Nicholas, Jonathan Allen and Allan Smith
They are a distinct minority in their own party and, for that matter, their country: Republican holdouts amid an ever-widening consensus that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine poses a mortal threat to American interests.

A far right wing of the Republican Party tightly bound to former President Donald Trump is fighting to push the GOP toward the “America First” isolationism that underpinned his 2016 presidential bid.

For the first time since Trump’s rise, his party is pushing back.

That much was clear from the House vote Thursday on a bill ending normal trade relations with Russia as punishment for attacking Ukraine. A total of 202 Republicans joined with 222 Democrats in voting to allow the Biden administration to raise tariffs on Russia, a rare bipartisan consensus in an era of fierce polarization.

Eight Republicans voted against the measure, including Trump loyalists like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. In a speech on the House floor Thursday, Greene gave a succinct summary of an America First argument that has been getting little traction in the face of deepening sympathy for the Ukrainians’ suffering. After objecting to the abundant attention the war is getting, she said that what “real Americans care about are gas prices that they can’t afford,” inflation and security along the southern border.

Echoing that sentiment, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, whom Trump has endorsed for re-election, explained her vote: “Congress keeps focusing on distractions abroad and not our own challenges brought on by Joe Biden at home.”

Both Greene and Boebert are part of a loose band of conservative lawmakers, pundits and foreign policy thinkers who, under the banner “America First,” see the war as peripheral to so-called pocketbook concerns important to families. What’s more, some of them argue that GOP leaders are reverting to Bush-era neoconservative positions that enmeshed the U.S. in "unwinnable wars."

“We have so many problems in this country that are a bigger concern to our citizens and should be a bigger concern to our leaders than what’s happening in Russia and Ukraine,” J.D. Vance, a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, told NBC News.

“Our voters do not want us to sacrifice American blood and treasure in Ukraine,” he added. “They want us to look after our own people first.”

Polling suggests otherwise. Surveys show that majorities of Americans are prepared to accept financial sacrifices if it means helping Ukraine defend its sovereignty. And polls suggest that Americans are absorbed in coverage of the war and inspired by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s resistance to the Russian siege.

That puts them at odds with another America First-er who’s gotten Trump’s endorsement, Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina. The 26-year-old congressman called Zelenskyy a “thug.”

An Economist/YouGov poll from earlier this month found the overwhelming majority of Republicans approve of sending weapons to Ukraine. A Quinnipiac poll released this month showed that more than two out of three Republicans support a ban on Russian oil imports, even if that means higher gas prices at home. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, GOP voters viewed him with contempt.

A Republican Senate aide, granted anonymity because the aide was not authorized to speak on the issue, told NBC News the war in Ukraine, and the response from isolationist-leaning conservatives, “has shown some of the online right to be kind of out of touch,” adding this conservative faction is “struggling” with its message in light of Russia’s unprovoked assault.

“I think if it were to turn into a … war with American lives at stake, it wouldn’t be very popular,” the aide said, “but it is also obviously jarring to the average person and people don’t like the U.S. to just take a passive role in the world.

Undeterred, the "America First" adherents believe that Trump’s approach to foreign policy is durable and denied they were in retreat. Steve Bannon, a former senior adviser in the Trump White House, said on his podcast earlier this month that “no Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine … until we get a full briefing and disclosure of exactly what is going on with facts.” In a text message, Bannon said that “of course” he sees public opinion on the right shifting to his stance on Ukraine, adding, “it’s changed already.” Asked for examples of such a shift, he did not respond.

Rachel Bovard, policy director at the Conservative Partnership Institute and a proponent of limited U.S. engagement abroad, said that American Conservative magazine would hold an “emergency” conference in Washington on March 31 to discuss Ukraine. She said there had been a worrisome “resurgence” of neoconservative thinking among Republicans.

“The America First foreign policy has made a lot of inroads,” she said in an interview. Establishment Republicans, she added, have “failed.”

“They’re speaking to a generation of us that watched them fail,” she said. U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both failed, she said, and “now, they’re making the same argument about Ukraine to a highly skeptical audience.”

Trump’s America First credo was never so much a coherent foreign policy doctrine as a useful slogan. Starting with his 2016 campaign, Trump embraced a more isolationist strain in American foreign policy thinking that went back to the nation’s founding.

Good relations with autocratic leaders, coupled with Trump’s unpredictability as commander in chief, would help deter foreign aggression, his allies argued. America might vacate the NATO alliance unless member countries upped their defense spending, he threatened.

Those ideas struck a chord with Trump voters who agreed that a more immediate threat to America’s future was a porous southern border and trade deals that wiped out jobs.

But America First could also devolve into "Trump First," his critics contend. Ukraine may be the most famous example. Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 centered on his efforts to persuade Zelenskyy to investigate a domestic political rival, Joe Biden, at a time when Ukraine needed weapons and support from the United States. (Trump was acquitted in the Senate.)

John Bolton, a former national security adviser under Trump who has emerged as a staunch critic of the ex-president, said: “Trump thought about Ukraine through the prism of ‘How does this benefit Donald Trump?’ Not ‘What strategic threats do we face?’”

For some nativists, America First means white Christians first. H.R. McMaster, another Trump national security adviser, wrote about this phenomenon in his 2020 book, “Battlegrounds.” Some of the strategists surrounding Trump felt a “peculiar sense of kinship with and affinity for Russian nationalists,” McMaster wrote. In this view, Putin was standing up for a Christian and Caucasian culture that he saw as under threat.

Last month, Greene and Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona spoke at the America First Political Action Conference. (Gosar addressed the gathering of white nationalists in a prerecorded video.) The organizer, Nicholas Fuentes, is a white nationalist activist who, before introducing Greene, urged support for Putin in the war with Ukraine. The crowd then chanted “Putin! Putin!”

The two Republican legislative leaders, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both condemned Greene and Gosar for their attendance.

It is not especially clear what America First means in practice. Newt Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker who has written a book called “Understanding Trump,” defined the concept in vague terms. Every policy discussion, he said in an interview, starts from the standpoint of “What’s in America’s best interests?”

But what are those interests and who gets to define them? Many experts argue that Ukraine’s survival matters to the U.S. If Putin conquers Ukraine, an emboldened Russia might then carry the war to neighboring NATO countries, setting off a direct clash between nuclear-armed nations. Under that argument, avoiding a third world war by stopping Putin in Ukraine would be squarely within America’s interests — or at least as much as cheap gas.

“When we stood with the Europeans, we had three generations of peace and prosperity in Europe,” said Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland. “That’s being challenged.”

Good article; thanks for posting it.

[jhu72]

The fascist republiCONs turn up the anti-abortion heat.. Bye bye privacy rights! Totally expected move.

[jhu72]

Gotta love it. Wokeism (whatever that is) is given as the reason by 17,000 Twitter users threatening to boycott Home Depot. Recall this is one of Kellyanne's good non-woke companies.