I totally agree. This notion of entrusting our votes to people of whom we know precious little about their beliefs and intentions for governance, and whom they might populate their cabinets with, is jolting to someone like me who first voted for Reagan. It's sad, because when conservatives can articulately debate philosophies and postions and their rationale, we can win hearts and minds. Of course, not that the Democrats want THAT. They'd much prefer we vote based solely on emotion.
I will with a somewhat comical line in the hope that Andy Smarick, or someone he has appointed, is actually reviewing these comments and that Andy hasn't just invited a bunch of 9 year old kids to come play on his backyard and no one is periodically looking out the kitchen window to make sure the kids haven't gone all "Lord Of The Flys" by the swing set.
With that thought in mind I want to take exception with one sentence of your comment that I think runs counter to what I believe Andy is attempting with this Governing Right model. As a Democrat, I take issue with your very broad brush statement that"Of course, not that Democrats want THAT". I am one of those democrats and I would look forward to engaging in a solidly fact-based discussion of policy. I just finished reading one of the articles Andy suggested
A Condensation of Russell Kirk’s
The Conservative Mind
I don't agree with many of the positions being argued but I read the article with intent to learn. I would suggest that the people who submit comments here should adhere to the "Original Intent" (pun intended) of this substack and that is to NOT bring anger and "politics" into the discussion. I totally get that trying to pull that off is a bit like walking through a cow pasture in white shoes and expecting the shoes to shine when you reach the other side. BUT,..... bring the mindset to "Andy's backyard swing set" that policy and governing needs to be debated outside my metaphorical cow pasture. I m not "Democrats". But I am a Democrat. Andy is a Republican. But I am willing to bet he is not "Republicans".
hmm interesting. I am hardly angry about anything (politically or otherwise) so not sure where that came from, and the topic of the article is inherently political so not sure why you'd think comments responding to it wouldn't be to some degree. That being said, there's not a lot going on here in this 'backyard swingset' anyway so...have fun talking to yourselves.
The term "policy" is a red flag for me, as it implies state action. "The First Amendment disables our country from having a reasonable and balanced media policy." Damn right it does, and that's a good thing. "Something as important as interest rates mustn't be left to the chaos of the market. We need a Federal Reserve System to turn the dials and knobs of interest rate policy for the good of all."
Not every use of the word "policy" is statist (the "policy" of not having a wealth tax or confiscatory income taxes or a VAT or a carbon tax), but every use of the word deserves scrutiny and thought, like the terms "we," "crisis," "fundamental right," "fair share," and "a little bit more."
Under the rubric of this original commentary about Campaigns without Policy, I would like to submit two options to whomever might be out "there" reading the commentary Andy has been posting. First, I will post the following link in an effort to solicit comments from any and all about a "Policy" document that is coming to define the Republican party.
This document has found its way into the press and into the public discussion. I would like to hear whether the thoughtful Conservatives who may populate this group thin the many policies described in this document fit your personal belief of what should define the United States.
Second, immigration policy.. There is hysteria on both sides of the aisle about what is happening at the southern border. I will submit the following comments for discussion sans "cow pasture" views. The vast majority of "stuff" argued by many is devoid of any true basis in the facts behind the situation. Hysteria wins votes but it play no role on a policy discussion. Anyone with a more detailed fact-based understanding that can better inform my arguments is totally welcome to do so.
1) The United States is party to a legally binding bit of international law that states that any individual from anywhere in the world has the legal right to present themself at our border and make a claim for Refugee Status. Our government is bound by that law as it was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law in the US many years ago. During the COVID epidemic there was a legal loophole to this law that allowed the US government to "temporarily" stop this process because of the health issues brought by the pandemic. Once everyone knew the pandemic was over the courts ruled that the US government could no longer use this argument.
2) There are multiple countries in South and Central America with governments that border of the verge of criminal gangs whose economies have collapsed. Where drug gangs have virtual sovereignty. Witness the collapse of Venezuela in the past decade and yesterday's sham election. Witness murders on the streets of cities in Mexico. Witness Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. El Salvador. Guatemala. Hundreds of thousands of people are quite literally running for their lives. To them a jail cell in Houston is like getting a upgrade from Marriott to a presidential suite.
3) There have been at least one, if not more, pieces of legislation that have gone through Congress with solid bipartisan support to work to better manage this problem. Part of the solution has been to recognize the legal right of these individuals to ask for asylum and have a court fully hear their case. The legislation would have brought a huge influx of money to the implementation of a dramatically expanded immigration court system to actually be able to hear these legally required cases. But the legislation died. I will leave it at that.
I would love to hear fact-based discussion on both these topics.
I think it is a safe bet that a President Harris will continue many of the policies presented in the Biden administration. A climate-friendly energy policy, support for expanding healthcare to more people who can't afford it, support for Ukraine and a stronger NATO as a bulwark against Putinism. The list is long. These policies have been discussed for multiple years from both sides of the aisle and the majority of Americans support these things.
a majority of Americans support Israel, too, yet she's far to the left of that position. She supported defunding the police and bailed out criminals in 2020 during the 'mostly peaceful protests' during COVID, even going so far as to support that race baiter Jussie Smollett. All of that makes me question her judgement.
I totally agree. This notion of entrusting our votes to people of whom we know precious little about their beliefs and intentions for governance, and whom they might populate their cabinets with, is jolting to someone like me who first voted for Reagan. It's sad, because when conservatives can articulately debate philosophies and postions and their rationale, we can win hearts and minds. Of course, not that the Democrats want THAT. They'd much prefer we vote based solely on emotion.
I will with a somewhat comical line in the hope that Andy Smarick, or someone he has appointed, is actually reviewing these comments and that Andy hasn't just invited a bunch of 9 year old kids to come play on his backyard and no one is periodically looking out the kitchen window to make sure the kids haven't gone all "Lord Of The Flys" by the swing set.
With that thought in mind I want to take exception with one sentence of your comment that I think runs counter to what I believe Andy is attempting with this Governing Right model. As a Democrat, I take issue with your very broad brush statement that"Of course, not that Democrats want THAT". I am one of those democrats and I would look forward to engaging in a solidly fact-based discussion of policy. I just finished reading one of the articles Andy suggested
A Condensation of Russell Kirk’s
The Conservative Mind
I don't agree with many of the positions being argued but I read the article with intent to learn. I would suggest that the people who submit comments here should adhere to the "Original Intent" (pun intended) of this substack and that is to NOT bring anger and "politics" into the discussion. I totally get that trying to pull that off is a bit like walking through a cow pasture in white shoes and expecting the shoes to shine when you reach the other side. BUT,..... bring the mindset to "Andy's backyard swing set" that policy and governing needs to be debated outside my metaphorical cow pasture. I m not "Democrats". But I am a Democrat. Andy is a Republican. But I am willing to bet he is not "Republicans".
hmm interesting. I am hardly angry about anything (politically or otherwise) so not sure where that came from, and the topic of the article is inherently political so not sure why you'd think comments responding to it wouldn't be to some degree. That being said, there's not a lot going on here in this 'backyard swingset' anyway so...have fun talking to yourselves.
The term "policy" is a red flag for me, as it implies state action. "The First Amendment disables our country from having a reasonable and balanced media policy." Damn right it does, and that's a good thing. "Something as important as interest rates mustn't be left to the chaos of the market. We need a Federal Reserve System to turn the dials and knobs of interest rate policy for the good of all."
Not every use of the word "policy" is statist (the "policy" of not having a wealth tax or confiscatory income taxes or a VAT or a carbon tax), but every use of the word deserves scrutiny and thought, like the terms "we," "crisis," "fundamental right," "fair share," and "a little bit more."
A little too tough on Trump, but the basic substance of this very weird feature of our politics today is undeniable.
Under the rubric of this original commentary about Campaigns without Policy, I would like to submit two options to whomever might be out "there" reading the commentary Andy has been posting. First, I will post the following link in an effort to solicit comments from any and all about a "Policy" document that is coming to define the Republican party.
https://www.project2025.org/
This document has found its way into the press and into the public discussion. I would like to hear whether the thoughtful Conservatives who may populate this group thin the many policies described in this document fit your personal belief of what should define the United States.
Second, immigration policy.. There is hysteria on both sides of the aisle about what is happening at the southern border. I will submit the following comments for discussion sans "cow pasture" views. The vast majority of "stuff" argued by many is devoid of any true basis in the facts behind the situation. Hysteria wins votes but it play no role on a policy discussion. Anyone with a more detailed fact-based understanding that can better inform my arguments is totally welcome to do so.
1) The United States is party to a legally binding bit of international law that states that any individual from anywhere in the world has the legal right to present themself at our border and make a claim for Refugee Status. Our government is bound by that law as it was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law in the US many years ago. During the COVID epidemic there was a legal loophole to this law that allowed the US government to "temporarily" stop this process because of the health issues brought by the pandemic. Once everyone knew the pandemic was over the courts ruled that the US government could no longer use this argument.
2) There are multiple countries in South and Central America with governments that border of the verge of criminal gangs whose economies have collapsed. Where drug gangs have virtual sovereignty. Witness the collapse of Venezuela in the past decade and yesterday's sham election. Witness murders on the streets of cities in Mexico. Witness Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. El Salvador. Guatemala. Hundreds of thousands of people are quite literally running for their lives. To them a jail cell in Houston is like getting a upgrade from Marriott to a presidential suite.
3) There have been at least one, if not more, pieces of legislation that have gone through Congress with solid bipartisan support to work to better manage this problem. Part of the solution has been to recognize the legal right of these individuals to ask for asylum and have a court fully hear their case. The legislation would have brought a huge influx of money to the implementation of a dramatically expanded immigration court system to actually be able to hear these legally required cases. But the legislation died. I will leave it at that.
I would love to hear fact-based discussion on both these topics.
Cheers
Jim Palmer
I think it is a safe bet that a President Harris will continue many of the policies presented in the Biden administration. A climate-friendly energy policy, support for expanding healthcare to more people who can't afford it, support for Ukraine and a stronger NATO as a bulwark against Putinism. The list is long. These policies have been discussed for multiple years from both sides of the aisle and the majority of Americans support these things.
a majority of Americans support Israel, too, yet she's far to the left of that position. She supported defunding the police and bailed out criminals in 2020 during the 'mostly peaceful protests' during COVID, even going so far as to support that race baiter Jussie Smollett. All of that makes me question her judgement.