State of Conservatism in 2020: Seduced by Populists

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 26, 2020

If the Republican Party is a confused bunch (as I argued in a recent column), then it’s a pretty good bet that conservatives are as well.

Today’s conservatism has lost its way in the era of populism and Donald Trump. 

But this shouldn’t have snuck up on anyone. In an essay I wrote on the state of the conservative movement twenty years ago, the current problems plaguing conservatism were on the rise. That included populism pushing some conservatives to attack big business, free trade, immigration and most traces of internationalism; big government conservatives, who then called for grand government adventures in the name of “national greatness;” and political conservatives willing to toss aside assorted principles to gain political power, and largely taking their instructions from, rather than providing intellectual guidance and firepower to, the Republican Party. 

These three problems have coalesced in recent years so that the traditional center of the American conservative movement – especially during much of the second half of the 20^thcentury – now finds itself back on its heels and dwindling in numbers. 

To summarize, that traditional conservatism – while always having arguments and disagreements, especially when it came to executing policies – had much in common in a foundational sense. That foundation could be quickly outlined as Judeo-Christian values, Western Civilization, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and assorted essential ideas and institutions, such as the Christian Church, the intrinsic value of each individual, the role of the family, freedom and individual responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise and free markets. That doesn’t mean that one had to be a Christian, for example, to be a conservative, but there was a need to understand how Christianity helped to inform conservatism on various matters, such as valuing each individual life, marriage and family, natural rights and liberty, and the values and morals that undergird free enterprise.

Thankfully, there remain strong voices in the public arena defending this traditional conservatism – such as George Will, David French, Jonah Goldberg and Mona Charen. 

But large swaths of conservatism have been seduced, in effect, by populism. While populism remains amorphous, it’s largely been about the fear of something or some groups, and in turn, populists’ claiming victim status. Favorite targets of populist rage over the years have been elites, globalists, bankers, big business, immigrants, and foreign businesses. It’s all rather messy and unsavory, but nonetheless, there are so-called public intellectuals willing to try to dress up populism with a depth that simply does not exist.

This populist insurgency has been joined by nationalists. What’s the problem with nationalism; after all, isn’t it just another term for patriotism, as many assert? In a column from February 2017, Mona Charen made a solid case for patriotism and not nationalism:

Patriotism is enough — it needs no improving or expanding. Nationalism is something else. It's hard to think of a nationalist who does not pervert patriotism into something aggressive — against foreign adversaries, domestic minorities or both. When Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the oil industry in 1938 (expropriating the property of hated foreigners), he was favored with a chanting crowd of 100,000 supporters in Mexico City. Gamal Abdel Nasser's nationalism found expression in nationalization (of the Suez Canal in that case) and also in aggressive war against Israel and Yemen. Vladimir Putin's nationalism has been characterized by demonization of the United States in domestic propaganda and his invasion of neighboring countries. Benito Mussolini believed in reclaiming Italy's lost glory and invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) to fulfill his vision...

I believe that nationalism is a demagogue's patriotism... Demagogues of the right — or nationalists — argue that our troubles are the result of immigrants taking our jobs or foreigners stealing our factories. This is not natural love of home and hearth or reverence for America's founding ideals. It is scapegoating.

And therefore, we see the merging or allegiance of nationalism and populism.

For good measure, some high-profile anti-liberty Catholics with hints of authoritarianism are playing in the “conservative” sandbox, along with political conservatives who proved more than willing to trade in long-held conservative principles for political power and/or influence. And there were some who deemed it necessary to maintain their business models to defend whatever the Republican Party does as being “conservative.”

The Trump years have proven to be a kind of perfect storm for conservatism, with a nationalist/populist Republican president (Trump called himself a “nationalist”) who demands unquestioning support, and a willingness among many conservatives – or former conservatives – to take their marching orders from the Republican Party, and to popularize or enable populism among parts of the GOP base.

And as for those conservatives willing to hold their noses or simply ignore this descent into populism in order to get what they want most – such as the appointment of judges who subscribe to original intent or judicial restraint (which I also support as a conservative), versus judicial activism – they fail to grasp the difference between short-term political gains and the very real likelihood of long-term defeat. 

After all, is an isolationist, fear-ridden, victim-peddling populism more likely to gain or lose adherents to conservative policies, such as pro-life judges and legislators? For that matter, is unquestioning support of Donald Trump going to advance conservatism in any real, lasting way, or make it less appealing? The answer to both questions is, quite frankly, no.

For decades, the conservative movement was marked by its intellectual independence. The policies, actions and arguments made by Republicans, Democrats and others were assessed according to conservative principles, and the conservative case was made in order to persuade others of and advance sound ideas. It was never done to perfection (at times, far from it) and often resorted to wrongheaded means, but conservatives should be among the first to acknowledge the faults – yes, the sins – of human beings, and then work to make improvements. 

Unfortunately, such independence in thought and action is in retreat on the Right, and it promises to be a real fight to reclaim conservatism for true conservatism.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York– signed booksor for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.

BEHIND ENEMY LINES: CONSERVATIVE COMMUNIQUES FROM LEFT-WING NEW YORK by Ray Keating

Enjoy Ray Keating’s collection of columns and essays in his forthcoming book BEHIND ENEMY LINES: CONSERVATIVE COMMUNIQUES FROM LEFT-WING NEW YORK 

Over the years, key conservative leaders have praised Ray Keating’s work, including...

“Keating is no sour-puss conservative... Keating’s pro-growth agenda of dramatic supply-side tax and regulatory cuts, school choice, and much smaller government stands as New York’s only chance at rebirth.”  - Steve Forbes

“Ray Keating and [co-author] Tom Edmonds evaluate the nation and the states according to a strong set of principles. Their views on politics and the state of society reveal a solid commitment to the conservative ideas that built this nation. Their take on the economy is unabashedly supply-side, offering a clear understanding that risk taking and entrepreneurship are the engines of economic growth.”  - Jack Kemp

This is a wide-ranging, engaging, and informative collection of columns and essays covering  economics, politics, faith, history, trade, New York, foreign affairs, immigration, pop culture, business, sports, books, and more.

Pre-order the Kindle edition at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B084ZF7THQ

Sale on signed pre-orders at  https://raykeatingonline.com/products/behindenemylines

Doubts About the U.S. Still Being a Right-of-Center Country

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – January 11, 2020

The United States has long been identified as a right-of-center country when it comes to politics. But is that still the case? A new Gallup poll proclaims that it is, but I have reasons for doubt.

In a January 9, 2020, release, Gallup declared, “The U.S. Remained Center-Right, Ideologically, in 2019.” Let’s consider the pollster’s findings.

Gallup reported that 37% of American adults described their political views as “conservative,” while 35% said “moderate” and 24% “liberal.” Well, conservatives should be pleased, so far.

But Americans also leaned more Democrat than Republican in terms of party preference or leaning – with 47% aligning themselves with the Democrats and 42% with Republicans. Gallup noted, “Americans' political leanings have been quite stable since 2016, the year Donald Trump was elected president. The Democratic figure has not changed in the past four years, and the Republican figure has been 41% or 42% each year since 2012.”

Interestingly, none of this is terribly new. Looking at Gallup’s polling back to the early 1990s, more people identify as “conservative” and “moderate” than “liberal,” but at the same time, party preference (including how independents leaned) generally has been Democrat over Republican.

Meanwhile, the breakdown of how Republicans and Democrats identify their political views has skewed in directions one might expect. For example, in 1994, Republicans broke down at 58% “conservative,” 33% “moderate,” and 8% “liberal. That compared to the 2019 breakdown among Republicans as 73% “conservative,” 21% “moderate,” and 4% “liberal.”

The trend, unsurprisingly, has been in the opposite direction among Democrats – but more drastic. In 1994, 48% identified as “moderate,” 25% “liberal,” and 25% “conservative.” That compared to a 2109 breakdown among Democrats of 49% “liberal,” 36% “moderate,” and 14% “conservative.”

This trend among Democrats lines up with a clear shift to the Left among Democratic Members of Congress and Democrats running for president. When Joe Biden is considered a “moderate” among Democrats, you know the party has taken a sharp left turn.

But what about Republicans as “conservatives”? The problem is that the term “conservative” has lost its meaning among many in the Republican Party, particularly during the era of Trump. After all, President Trump has identified himself as a “nationalist.” And his main policy positions and political rhetoric rank as “populist.” And populism is not conservatism.

While a slippery term, populism has some common threads over the decades, namely, fear of something or some groups, opposition to a vague group of “elites,” and claims of being victims. So, populists often rail against bankers and big business. Today, key populist targets are free trade, immigration, and once more, sometimes vague “elites.” Like leftist Progressives, populists seek to engage government on their behalf, for their own causes, while vehemently opposing government action for issues they oppose.

The populist outlook stands in stark contrast to what traditional conservatism has stood for and encompassed. A traditional conservative generally understands and subscribes to Judeo-Christian values, free enterprise, free markets, and a strong national defense, with key policy positions being low taxes, smaller government, a light regulatory touch, strength in foreign policy and national security, free trade, and a social policy agenda led by being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Conservatism embraces freedom and personal responsibility, as well as compassion and charity. Conservatism views government in Madisonian terms, that is government more or less is a necessary evil that must be limited to basic duties, such as protecting life, limb and property. Conservatism certainly doesn’t accept the populist/Progressive idea that “We’re all victims now,” and government needs to do something about it, whether that be imposing protectionist trade policies, or breaking up large technology companies that populists fear or with which they disagree.

In the end, populism has more in common with Progressivism than conservatism, and yet, most populists today identify as conservatives. 

Therefore, that 37% of Americans identifying as “conservative” turns out to be rather meaningless. How many in this group are actually populists rather than conservatives? No one knows, but it’s clear that it’s a far bigger chunk than perhaps many of us suspected just a few years ago. And that casts serious doubt on the notion that America is still a center-right country.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, a novelist (his latest novel is The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series), an economist, a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own.

Trump, Clinton and Sanders: Welcome to New York, America

by Ray Keating

For some bizarre reason, I’ve chosen to live my entire life in loopy New York. From a political standpoint, that has meant suffering under a one-party system. This New York reality is now spreading across the nation in the current presidential race.

Hillary Clinton, former U.S. senator from New York, squares off with Bernie Sanders, originally from New York, on the Democrat side, and New York City businessman and reality TV star Donald Trump leads among Republicans.

But what do I mean by this “one party” comment? Yes, New York is a deep blue state, but there are Republicans in the state. In fact, Republicans still have effective control of the state senate – barely. The problem is that both parties, for the most part, are Democrats.

The New York Democratic Party ranks among the most hard core of Democrats. They are unabashedly left wing, whether on economic matters or social issues.

Meanwhile, New York Republicans amount to little more than Democrat-Lite. They love big government; are a mixed bag, at best, on most social issues; and are far too interested in pandering to keep some sliver of power. Notions that Republicans should be principled in any way, and work to change hearts and minds on the issues, are treated as an absurdity. Sure, there’s a real conservative here and there in New York, but they are the exceptions. There’s a reason why New York has a Conservative Party. It was created in 1962 to serve as a conservative check on the Republicans, and that need has not gone away for more than a past half-century. Apparently, few Republican Party leaders grasp the idea that if voters have a choice between Democrats and Democrat-Lite, they’re more likely to choose the real thing. And hence, the long decline of Republicans in New York.

Welcome to New York, America.

Turning to the current presidential campaign, the Clintons, of course, chose to move to New York as this Democrat state would give her an excellent shot at winning a U.S. Senate seat. In her 2000 victory, Mrs. Clinton was helped by the fact that Republicans made a complete mess of matters, with Rudy Giuliani dropping out of the race and being replaced by Congressman Rick Lazio, who ran an inept campaign.

Of course, Clinton is an unabashed liberal on nearly every issue imaginable, from abortion to taxes to foreign policy, and beyond. That’s no secret.

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders, a New Yorker for the first 27 years of his life before moving to Vermont in 1968, manages to stake out ground to the left of Clinton. That’s not easy. But, heck, the guy warmly embraces the socialist label. What else needs to be said?

Welcome to New York, America.

And then there’s Donald Trump. Given his flip-flopping on nearly every major issue, his being devoid of any principles, and his willingness to say just about anything to gain power, along with an inability to think and express himself clearly on issues, Trump rather nicely fits the New York Republican model.

Welcome to New York, America.

In fact, America has become New York. The Democrats serve up radical Lefties. The current leader among Republicans lacks any kind of commitment to or understanding of conservatism and conservative policies.

Funny, I thought New York long ago no longer mattered when it came to national politics. Silly me.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The U.S. Version of the Spanish Civil War?

by Ray Keating

Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump in November reminds me of a U.S. political version of the Spanish Civil War. That is, when fascists square off against communists, everyone loses in the end.

Of course, I might be stretching things, but bear with me.

First let’s get something straight about the Spanish Civil War. In Spain in the late 1930s, the losses were grim, with hundreds of thousands being killed at the hands of both fascists and communists. It’s odd that to this very day, the American Left still views one side favorably in this brutal conflict. In reality, the Spanish Civil War was not about forces of democracy battling against Franco and the fascists. Rather, it was a power struggle between two nearly indistinguishable ideologies that raise up the state, crush the individual, and eradicate liberty. It was a matter who would acquire power in order to expand government throughout the economy, society and the culture. Franco and the fascists received aid from Germany and Italy, while the so-called “republicans” or “loyalists” – that is, in reality, the communists – were backed by the Soviet Union. It was a no-win scenario, to the extreme.

As for the U.S., I pray that we never descend into such chaos. But on a different level, an election between Hillary Clinton (or for that matter, Bernie Sanders) and Donald Trump would wind up being another no-win scenario.

There’s nothing secret about Hillary Clinton. She obviously has dedicated her political life since becoming first lady to expanding the size of the state in most aspects of life in the U.S., including increased taxes, expanded regulations, more spending, and greater government control over such areas as health care and education. Also, like her leftist allies, including President Barack Obama, Clinton fails to recognize as legitimate those opposing her views and policies.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has morphed his views – most recently, flip-flopping on nearly every major issue – to fit his personal needs and desires. When acting as a businessman, Trump contributed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, invited her to his wedding, and was friends with her. Now, with his pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination, Trump opposes and attacks Mrs. Clinton. This reality TV star stands out as a glaring example of the inflated ego who seeks power, and is committed only to his personal power. He certainly has little regard for the Constitution and our political process given his lack of respect for the First Amendment, his unwillingness to reject violence in support of his candidacy, his personal attacks on and thinly veiled threats to anyone disagreeing with him, his bizarre claims that no one has been treated as poorly as him in the history of politics, his disturbing declarations on illegal orders he would give our military, his crudeness, and his populist strategy of setting up the bogeyman of foreigners (see his anti-trade and anti-immigration messages) as the causes of America’s woes.

The Spanish Civil War was a blood-soaked battle between supporters of two ideologies that, in effect, were one and the same. They struggled to see who would gain power, and be able to turn the power of the state against the individual.

Meanwhile, the 2016 election in the U.S. provides little hope that voters will have any kind of real choice at the ballot box. Assorted conservatives and libertarians in recent times have rather childishly complained that no real differences exist between Republicans and Democrats. Saying, for example, then that Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives are no different from President Barack Obama reveals a stunning lack of discernment. However, worrying that, in the end, the policies served up by a President Donald Trump would vary little from what a President Hillary Clinton would impose is a very real concern, based on experience and the realities we see at hand.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

How Bad Could This Presidential Election Get for Republicans?

by Ray Keating

Just how bad could it get for the Republican Party in November if Donald Trump winds up being the GOP nominee, as is the most likely outcome currently?

This is not an idle question. After all, Trump has astoundingly bad numbers in terms of his favorable-unfavorable ratings. Indeed, his unfavorables run at about two-thirds. That’s simply unheard of. Any candidate with unfavorable or disapproval ratings hitting 50 percent is pretty much assured of losing. So, if Trump becomes the GOP nominee, and anything close to these unfavorables persist, the question is not will Trump lose, but how bad will he lose.

Of course, Hillary Clinton also possesses poor favorable-unfavorable ratings, with her unfavorables running at about 54 percent.

Indeed, a Trump-Clinton contest would have two significantly unpopular candidates facing off. Based on these numbers, neither should win. But someone has to, right?

At least at this point in time, Trump’s woes are far more significant than Clinton’s, especially given the significant share of Republicans who would be dissatisfied – 48 percent according to an ABC/Washington Post poll – with Trump as the party’s candidate.

As a result, even with all of her problems, Mrs. Clinton could wind up with the best showing of any Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Consider that in the post-World War II era, only three Democratic candidates for president managed to gain at least 50% of the vote – Barack Obama did it in 2008 at 52.9% and in 2012 at 51%, Jimmy Carter in 1976 at 50.1%, and LBJ in 1964 at 61.1 percent. The other victorious Democrats failed to hit 50% -- Truman in 1948 at 49.6%, Kennedy in 1960 at 49.7%, and Bill Clinton in 1992 at 43% and in 1996 at 49.2%.

It is bizarre, yet at the same time, given Trump’s negatives, not difficult to envision Hillary Clinton topping 55% of the vote, especially given the very real possibility that many conservative Republican voters could simply stay home and not vote. And the negative fallout for the GOP would then be felt down the line in terms of lost U.S. Senate, state and local races.

It pays to recall that there was at least a purpose to Goldwater’s big loss in 1964. That is, it was the dawn of the conservative movement within the GOP, and it eventually led to Ronald Reagan becoming president. In that sense, Goldwater’s loss ultimately was a party building positive for Republicans. Donald Trump is the exact opposite, that is, he is an unprincipled, populist force that promises to undermine the GOP, with a good chance of sending the Republicans into a political wilderness.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning for Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel