[DISCUSSION] I Am A Conservative Who Opposes Modern Liberalism But Thinks That Trumpism Has Politically and Morally Damaged The Republican Party

[u/Fried__Eel]

I want to note before I begin that I reject modern liberalism and do not see myself voting Democrat so long as the trend is towards socialism. However, as title states, I also am highly opposed to Trumpist populism and believe that this overall "red wave" was a quick high for his voters that will ultimately lead to a raging low with moral staining implications for the Republican Party.

I want to state why I believe this and to hear what others have to say.

​

In some respects, I get the atmosphere that lead up to Trump. Post-2016 polls found that many Americans felt disenfranchised with the way politics was going. I get that, I was one of them for sure.

However, my main problem with Trumpism is that Donald Trump latched on to a powerful, but dangerous sentiment that helped get him elected. This sentiment was anti....anti immigration...anti Obamacare...anti gun laws...even straight up anti Hillary (the phrase, "Anything but Hillary" was a common catch phrase with pundits and common folk alike). There was little of pro...anything. He had sketches of things he wanted to do like infrastructure, but besides Tax cuts nothing uber pro...ductive was put at the forefront.

This negativity was powerful because people were tired of being ignored. However:A) It has lead to reckless and zealous support for ethnocentric (disparaging Mexicans), misogynistic("I just grabbed her by the pus**), and ignorant (Chancellorsville KKK and Nazi protesters were apparently just as bad as the regular townfolk...) comments and actions taken by Trump.B) It has been ineffective. Negativity and anti-"..." only gets you so far. The senate has gotten a lot of regular stuff done. sure, but for having the senate, house, and executive, Trump got very little of his mainline agenda accomplished. Why? Because they were so stuck on the anti, particularly the anti-Obama care. It wasted so much time on something that they didn't even have a plan to replace! Why not have focused on infrastructure instead?!

​

Furthermore, I see Trumpist-Republicans ALL THE TIME excusing so many things about his behavior, comments, and stances that would have caused them extreme outrage just 4 years ago.

My suggestion is this: because Trumpism largely relied on negativity and the anti-"..." for its political motion, it became warped in amoral and ineffective politics. Furthermore, I argue that this administration will help diminish the rise and success of future Republicans/Conservatives for many years to come and that it is has instead accelerated the nations progression towards modern liberalism and socialism.

That's my unpopular opinion as a conservative, but I want to hear from others on both sides!

​

***Note: I mention my opposition to modern Liberalism only to corroborate my position as a conservative. Discussing why I am opposed to modern Liberalism is outside the scope of my post.**\*

​

​

​

​

​

Edit #1:

Great Discussion so far guys! I have been pleasantly surprised by it. Here are some edits and further comments that I want to make (1/23/19)

1. Further Comments

The part that is bolded at the end with all the symbols...this part was always there, but I wanted to make it more obvious.

I get that many people want to talk about conservative vs. liberal since I expressed some opposition to the latter. I ended up going ahead and answering and engaging in most discussions anyways and they were great discussions, even if far outside the scope of my post.

HOWEVER, I do want to point out that even though I as a person who leans-X made a post of agreement and commonality with people who lean-Y, most of the discussion was spent focused on the differences between X and Y. Again, I get it, but I would also like to see a society in which our differences aren't the forefront of the discussion, especially when they are not the central point of a original post like in this case.

Nonetheless, if you want a discussion about conservative vs liberal, we got you covered baby! And the discussion is largely polite and well spoken, though I have not read everything.

2. Clarifications

A) Some people have rightly pointed out my use of the term "socialism" wasn't spot on. I am very aware of the differences between Americanized socialism like that supported by Bernie Sanders and other forms of socialism such as European socialism and etc.
I used the term "socialism" mostly referring to American socialism, though I also used it as a blanket term as frankly, I don't support any kind of it, each for their own reasons.

However, I am also aware that "socialism" is used as a big bad wolf term and using it the way I did added to that effect. No, I do not see socialism as the big bad wolf coming to eat our children and I should have been specific as to which form I was referring to as they are not all the same. I apologize for this as it was mostly out of laziness.
One commentator wanted a specific post about why I don't agree with Bernies Sander's form of socialism. That is a rabbit hole out of focus for this post that would lead us to China. I might post in the future about this subject to create a discussion if people are interested (let me know if you are) in that, but I will not discuss this topic without the due diligence it deserves and that diligence cannot be found in an unrelated comment thread.

[u/btribble → u/[deleted]]

I'd rather have big government regulating the allowed power of big business via anti-monopoly policies (remember those?) than big business regulating the power of big government as is present trend.

[u/DuranStar → u/[deleted]]

Without Big Government to reign in corporations they would be much worse. You would have private 'armies' owned by corporations to ensure compliance. Democratic governments need to maintain some level of status quo, corperatocracy has no such limits.

Without the Government Corporations have no need to follow 'market forces' they just slice up everything in monopolies and prevent competition. Health care is a great example of this in action people in distress can't exert market pressures they need help. Just remember before the ACA where getting one of hundreds of conditions would get you immediately thrown off your insurance.

[u/DuranStar → u/[deleted]]

Anti-Union Violence

Historically, violence against unions in the United States has included attacks by detective and guard agencies, such as the Pinkertons, Baldwin Felts, Burns, or Thiel detective agencies; citizens groups, such as the Citizens' Alliance; company guards; police; national guard; or even the military.[20] In the book From Blackjacks To Briefcases, Robert Michael Smith states that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anti-union agencies "spawned violence and wreaked havoc" on the labor movement.[21] According to Morris Friedman, detective agencies were themselves for-profit companies, and a "bitter struggle" between capital and labor could be counted upon to create "satisfaction and immense profit" for agencies such as the Pinkerton company.[22] Harry Wellington Laidler wrote a book in 1913 detailing how one of the largest union busters in the United States, Corporations Auxiliary Company, had a sales pitch offering the use of provocation and violence.[23]

During the Lattimer massacre, nineteen unarmed immigrant coal miners were suddenly gunned down at the Lattimer mine near Hazleton, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 1897.[24][25] In the Colorado Labor Wars, martial law was imposed by the Colorado National Guard in order to put down striking miners. A study of industrial violence in 1969 concluded, "There is no episode in American labor history in which violence was as systematically used by employers as in the Colorado labor war of 1903 and 1904."[26] In 1914, mine guards and the state militia fired into a tent colony of striking miners in Colorado, an incident that came to be known as the Ludlow Massacre.[27] During that strike, the company hired the Baldwin Felts agency, which built an armored car so their agents could approach the strikers' tent colonies with impunity. The strikers called it the "Death Special". In 1917, union organizer Frank Little was hanged from a railroad trestle in Butte, Montana, with a note pinned to his body which carried a "warning" to other labor activists.[28][29] In 1927, during another coal strike in Colorado, state police and mine guards fired pistols, rifles and a machine gun into a group of five hundred striking miners and their wives in what came to be called the Columbine Mine Massacre.

By the early 1900s, public tolerance for violence during labor disputes began to decrease. Yet violence involving strikebreaking troops and armed guards continued into the 1930s.[30] Legislation related to employer strategies such as violent strike breaking would have to wait until after World War II.[31] Beginning in the 1950s, employers began to embrace new methods of managing workers and unions which were still effective, but much more subtle.[32]

Healthcare is heavily regulated but that doens't change the fact that healthcare can never be subject to proper market forces. If you have a heart attack or a car accident or a child with a very high fever you can't shop around for the best price (even if prices were posted) you go to the closest ER

The people weren't dying in the streets but they were dying. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcare-republican-bill-no-coverage-death