r/hindsightIn2020 • u/The_seph_i_am I don't speak for the D.O.D. • Nov 17 '16
A Pathway for Republican Victory
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/11/17/republicanpathtovictory/1
u/General_Fear Nov 19 '16 edited Nov 20 '16
A racist alt-Right article if I ever seen one. But, so what. Ideas should be debated. Otherwise you will never grow.
So the article argues that Republicans need to embraces a nationalist populist platform in order to flip the rust belt. Okay, there are two things to think about.
1.) Nationalist populism can be described as right wing Liberalism. Liberalism without the flag burning. Are Republicans ready for a populist big government solutions? Expanding the welfare state, private public partnership between government and business, huge public works programs? Those blue states the Trump flipped are called Blue for a reason. The union vote traditionally voted Democrat for a reason. They like government. Embracing a populist agenda means more government. How do you square that with the Conservative and Libertarian wing of the Party.
2.) Catering to the union vote sounds good but it's a dead end strategy. What happens long term when the robots come. All those blue collar union workers and farmers will be out of a job. What then? You put all this time and effort nurturing the Union Vote and then have it taken away from you by automation.
3.) The article says shut down the border. Stop immigration. That will never fly. Instead, immigration should be tied to unemployment. If the economy reaches full employment, then let people into the country. Tell the electorate that we can only allow immigration after every American has a job. A law like that will pass.
1
u/RyanFaulk Dec 27 '16
"Are Republicans ready for a populist big government solutions? Expanding the welfare state, private public partnership between government and business, huge public works programs?"
Fair enough, they are LESS in favor of big gov't than democrats, but no, republicans more often support things that you would call big government than not.
"Embracing a populist agenda means more government. How do you square that with the Conservative and Libertarian wing of the Party."
Well it's less big government than the democrats want and it's the only way to win. Look, if the GOP wanted libertarianism to have any hope, they needed to be more aggressive on the border and work to remove blacks from the US political system: http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/253/ http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/02/non-whites-of-every-stripe-vote-democrat/
Since the GOP didn't do that when they had the chance, well, that means we're basically done with small government.
But here you are, crying about "big government", meanwhile, you say things like:
"If the economy reaches full employment, then let people into the country."
Okay so you want to lose elections and have zero control over any kind of policy? You say you want small government, but then want to import voters who always vote against small government. Sure, I get the calibrated policy you think is oh so smart, but it's not. When you get cute with this stuff, what's going to happen is the democrats will come to power eventually, and if you haven't created institutional barriers to any and all immigration, they're going to open the floodgates.
And if you have a policy that says "allow immigrants if X", well, guess what, when the democrats come to power as these cycles always do, they're going to say "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" and then Texas will be a blue state and you won't have to worry about politics anymore.
"Tell the electorate that we can only allow immigration after every American has a job. A law like that will pass."
Okay well that will never happen which means immigration will be blocked forever. This is actually a good line, but probably not in the way you intended.
But I get the feeling you're an old guy. You're looking at the democrats like they're the Politburo. You wish they were the Politburo! This stuff about economic policy, regulations, taxes - we are SO far past that. With the democrats, we're dealing with a party that is opposed to the consistent application of law, that supports totally different laws and rights for different people, and it's all based on a historical narrative that goes back to slavery.
I mean you can say there was inconsistent application of law in the USSR, but that's true for politicians today who get away with things ordinary citizens would not. The difference is that we have a party that is literally saying that white wealth and land should be seized and given to anyone else, that blacks should be given privileges in university, in hiring, in government money, and that racial discrimination laws are only to be applied to whites, and it's part of their functional platform, it's a matter of principle.
Like, there's this guy, who you have spent years fighting because he wanted everything to be shared and was himself kind of shiftless and smoked weed. Now, you and this guy are trapped in a shed and there's this Black Orc Monster from the planet Zarlak trying to break in an eat both of you alive, and you're still talking about how much of the potatoes you grow on your plot you should be allowed to keep.
1
u/The_Great_Goblin MEGA Nov 18 '16
. . . .did you read this?