old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 4:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:23 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:28 pm
... there is no such thing progressive-conservatism. All of the examples he gives are progressives - FULL STOP. Progressive republicans are just progressives, same as progressive democrats.
I think that's right.
There's perhaps a difference in degree of progressive, or some nuances, but fundamentally I think it's a mistake to use those words together...he's just describing progressive or 'moderate' Republicans...he's clear that, for instance, Eisenhower had little patience with right wing reactionaries.
He's claiming a former 'conservativism' that defines largely by "west" vs "east", 'nationhood' vs 'cosmopolitanism', 'democracy and equality' vs 'aristocracy', etc...and then trying to weave that into something relevant to today....but today those notions and that language has pretty much been captured by right wing reactionaries, whether 'west' or especially the south. Lost Cause..."purity"...
When asked 'who today'..."It's a lot easier to do that if I go back 60 years"...nobody in Congress today...maybe governors...
He's reaching for Youngkin...but that's a quite imperfect vessel for his wishful thinking. Too bad, really, but Youngkin chose to tap into the old southern BS and culture war garbage.
Interesting though; thanks Salty for posting.
So you guys are saying that "conservative" & "progressive" are mutually exclusive. That it is not possible to be both or for a party or individual to espouse both conservative & progressive policies. The examples he gave were TR & IKE. ...how 'bout Kasich ?
I dunno about what's "possible" (a party
can have all sorts of jumbled views) for an individual, but I don't think there's any actual thing as "progressive conservatism", much as I might like the concept and as much of what he described was pretty darn close to my own views.
I certainly might describe myself as progressive socially, conservative fiscally, strong federal government, and an internationalist globally (along the lines of Hamilton vs Jefferson much less Jefferson Davis)...but thats not really what he was describing in his quest to find something for the GOP to rally to.
But he was actually talking about progressive social views, by and large, as well as a strong federal government role (and anti-corruption, which he's dismayed as been abandoned by the GOP...yet he balks at the question about "dark money")...But he simply puts these 'progressive' values under the umbrella of the GOP, Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower for starters...being under the GOP doesn't make that "conservatism', just "Republican".
Look, the guy wants a strong GOP and he also wants a governing philosophy that most of us would recognize as "progressive". I agree. I just think he's stretching the philosophical argument, wishing the GOP hadn't abandoned these values over the past decades, culminating in MAGA/Trump and fealty to such. Me too.
The Q&A session was interesting. I've already mentioned the balk at dark money being disappointing as otherwise he was on the right track...but he admitted that his balk is that cracking down on dark money, with greater transparency, would not favor the GOP...yikes, the whole point is to get clean hands...
I was also disappointed that when he talked about "nationalism", as simply 'favoring Americans", he didn't recognize how awful the ideology nationalism has been in the hands of populists and despots all over the world and throughout history. Want to simply say 'patriotic'? fine. But nationalism carries way, way too much baggage...he was definitely clear that he recognized that the GOP needs to reject the racism of "white nationalism" but come on man, the ship has sailed with that rhetoric. His actual view on it, I'm comfortable with.
The "west" versus "east" concept, the "values" he claimed for Republicans (west), ignore the realities that the Republican Party has been overtaken by the states rights south, not the west.
Again, I think this was a very interesting video, and I appreciate this guy swinging at the ball to find a way for the GOP to move forward, washing itself clean of the stench of the current iteration of the GOP.
But I think we're an awful long way from that happening, unfortunately...as I've said, I think the GOP has to lose and lose and lose at the ballot box before there's been a full reckoning of how far wrong we went. And it may be too late for this party to recover given where the demographics are going to go...we're so incredibly out of step on the "culture" stuff with the younger generation that it's likely to take a bunch of cycles.
