, November 6, 2016. (Reuters photo: Carlo Allegri)
How conservatism is changing in the Trump era Decades of intellectual and political activity preceded the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review in 1955. A little less than a decade later, National Review publisher William Rusher helped orchestrate Barry Goldwater’s presidential nomination. The following year, 1965, Buckley ran for mayor of New York City, and Irving Kristol, then still a member of the anti-Communist Left, founded The Public Interest. The year after that, Reagan was elected governor of California. The 1970s saw the proliferation of single-issue interest groups that constituted the New Right.
The first Conservative Political Action Conference was held in 1973. In 1977, a year after losing the Republican nomination to incumbent Gerald Ford, Reagan addressed the conference. “The new Republican party I am speaking about,” he said, “is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat, and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism.”
When President Reagan took office in 1981, he could count on 25 years of accumulated conservative thought, argument, rhetoric, policy proposals, and political experience. The movement came first. The voters followed. Today the situation is reversed. Donald Trump won the Republican nomination and the presidency of the United States despite the resistance of the conservative intellectual movement and many party activists. While his administration leans heavily on institutions such as the Heritage Foundation, those aspects of his campaign that diverged most significantly from the conservatism of the Beltway remain undefined. Where Trump stands on trade, immigration, entitlements, America First, and the Iraq war is clear enough. Not so clear, however, is whether those stances add up to a coherent worldview, what that worldview is, and what it implies for political action. In the case of President Trump, the voters came before the movement. Hence one explanation for the turbulent beginning of his administration is that Trump, unlike Reagan, is unable to draw from years of intellectual work and policy research. That is beginning to change.
The first issue of American Affairs, a quarterly journal of policy and political thought, was feted at a reception in New York City on Tuesday. I found the magazine lively and thought-provoking and at times deeply insightful. In their mission statement the editors reject “a misguided and complacent consensus” that too easily dismisses widespread protest against social problems as populist exercises in nostalgia. “But our intellectuals as well as our politicians are subservient to an even more debilitating nostalgia,” the editors say, “which views the ideologies of the last few decades as the only alternatives and their policies as the only solutions. They are nostalgic for a present they think they inhabit, but which has already slipped away.” And this nostalgia led the intellectuals and politicians so far afield that they missed completely the economic crisis, the Arab Spring, Brexit, and the rise and victory of Donald Trump. Trump is such a singular figure that he sometimes obscures the larger social, cultural, and political canvas on which he operates. American Affairs got its start as a blog, the Journal of American Greatness, whose objective was to provide, in the words of its most famous contributor, “a sensible, coherent Trumpism.” But one of the virtues of this first issue of American Affairs is that Trump is mentioned only rarely. He is but an epiphenomenon of a much stronger force that is shaking the foundations of the post–Cold War world. It is not Trumpism but this larger concept that needs to be made sensible and coherent.
I am speaking of nationalism. –
“What binds globalism and identity politics together,” says Joshua Mitchell of Georgetown, “is the judgment that national sovereignty is not the final word on how to order collective life. This judgment against national sovereignty — let us state that matter boldly — was the animating principle of the post-1989 world order, an order that is now collapsing before our eyes.” When the Cold War ended, Mitchell writes, victorious elites in Washington, London, and Brussels began constructing a world where attachments to national identity would be attenuated or even severed. One would belong to a group above the nation — be a “citizen of the world,” an employee of a multinational corporation or NGO, a partisan of Davos, a subject of the EU — or to a hyphenated group below it. Capital, goods, and people would flow across borders in search of the highest return. The immense power of the United States would police this new world order and enforce the responsibility of states to protect their citizens.
But there was a price. “The separation of political power from the political community,” writes editor Julius Krein, “naturally follows from this separation of ownership and control” in the global economy. Increasingly, power is shifted away from individuals elected to represent the political community toward unelected officials qualified to hold the positions responsible for administering the government — that is, providing for consumption. Increasingly, power is shifted away from individuals elected to represent the political community toward unelected officials qualified to hold the positions responsible for administering the government — that is, providing for consumption. Like all managers, they derive their power from the administrative expertise and credentials that qualify them for office rather than from democratic legitimacy.
They are accountable, that is, not to the political community but to the other managers that define their qualifications. This lack of accountability has been highlighted again and again over the last 16 years. First 9/11 happened and no one was fired. Then Saddam turned out not to have had WMD and no one was fired. The economy came close to collapse — and the banks were bailed out. Government reform of health care only made the individual market worse.
The depression of rural and working-class America was exacerbated by imperialistic environmental and financial regulations, liberal welfare and minimum-wage policies, and further global economic integration. “The economic, foreign policy, and technological optimism of previous decades is gone,” writes Krein. “Preserving the status quo has become the sole aspiration — and primarily for the purpose of preserving the class privilege of the current elite, which, even if not admitted, is becoming obvious to voters.” Only in the last few years have voters around the world rediscovered the nation as a means to combat this affluent, detached, aloof, self-serving global caste. London, Washington, and Paris have been shocked by displays of unanticipated and sometimes crude patriotism, by voters registering their membership in a singular political community sharing a common language, history, and culture.
Once thought to be an anachronism or an atavism, nationalism has revealed itself as the avant-garde of international politics in the early 21st century. This is the movement that propelled Trump to the White House. This is the movement that the editors and contributors to American Affairs must articulate, refine, and translate into social, cultural, economic, and foreign policies. What does that look like in practice?
Hard to say: This first issue leans more heavily toward the abstract than the concrete. Clyde Prestowitz suggests ways to narrow the trade deficit with China. David P. Goldman calls for a major increase in spending on defense research and development. Adam Adatto Sandel proposes that “workers from a range of industries” be “represented in trade negotiations” and, “if only as a thought experiment,” that representation be reorganized “around profession rather than state or district.” Count me in — so long as we keep the results of that thought experiment to ourselves. Above all, nationalism means distinguishing between members of a political community and outsiders, and privileging the former over the latter. Such distinctions make many people profoundly uncomfortable. Look at the headlines surrounding the Trump administration’s policies on refugees, travel from failed or terrorist-sponsoring states, and illegal immigration. Witness the recent debate in the pages of National Review over Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry’s qualified defense of nationalism.
There are some conservatives who seem to believe that there is no such thing as the American people, only an American idea. But this gets it backward. Without the people, there would be no idea. Americans may come from all over the world, we may profess every religion, but we are bound together not just by our founding documents but by those mystic chords of memory of which Lincoln spoke, by our love of the land, its natural beauty, its inhabitants, its history, by what our people have achieved, what they have lost, what they have endured. What’s uncomfortable is often necessary. That is the case today. Reducing illegal immigration, reforming legal immigration to prioritize skilled workers and would-be citizens, asserting national prerogatives in trade negotiations, spending on the military and defense research, “betting on ideas” rather than on social insurance, bureaucracy, and rent-seeking, saving the idea of national community through the promulgation of our shared language, literature, art, film, television, music — this is the beginning of a nationalist agenda. But only the beginning. —
Matthew Continetti is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, where this column first appeared. © 2017 All rights reserved
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445232/nationalism-conservatism-republican-party-american-right-donald-trump?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20Top%20Stories%20Recurring%202017-02-25&utm_term=VDHM
Photo: WTAJ Video Screenshot
by BOB PRICE25 Feb 2017Bridgeport, CT
Pennsylvania police arrested a previously deported criminal alien from Connecticut suspected in the murder of his wife, assault of another woman, and kidnapping his daughter. The entire State of Connecticut has been certified by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a sanctuary jurisdiction.
Police in the Keystone State arrested Oscar Obedio Hernandez, 39, after Bridgeport police issued an amber alert for his daughter, 6-year-old Aylin Hernandez. Police in his resident town of Bridgeport issued the alert after being called to his home. Upon arriving at the scene, police discovered the body of the child’s mother, Nidia Gonzalez. Police suspect Hernandez for stabbing Gonzalez to death, the Hartford Courant reported. Another woman, said to be a friend, was also stabbed repeatedly. She is expected to survive her wounds, Fox News reported.
PA State Police troopers rescue Alyn Hernandez after her father crashed his car during a high-speed chase. (Photo: Abby Drey/Centre Daily Times via AP)
“He was removed from the United States by ICE officers in Hartford on Nov. 27, 2013,” Shawn Neudauer, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesman, said in a statement reported by the Courant. “He has prior felony convictions from 2002 for assault and threatening, as well as several misdemeanor convictions. ICE has placed an immigration detainer with the Bridgeport Police Department.”
Following a months’ long effort by Congressman John Culberson (R-TX), the DOJ certified the entire state of Connecticut as a sanctuary jurisdiction – making them ineligible to receive federal law enforcement grants. He said jurisdictions like Connecticut, California, and the other eight jurisdictions certified not to be in compliance with federal law, must “choose between protecting criminal aliens and receiving federal funds.”
Just two days ago, Breitbart News’ Warner Todd Huston reported Connecticut Governor Dannel Maloy sent a memo to law enforcement agencies advising them not to detain a criminal alien based on their immigration status. The sanctuary state governor insisted police should not treat immigration detainers as an official order or warrant. He continued, advising law enforcement officials to deny federal immigration authorities access to criminal aliens in their custody.
Hernandez was not unknown to local police. He had previously been served with a protective order from involving another woman who was not involved in this week’s case.
Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, a convicted felon who was re-elected to his job after serving seven years in a federal prison after a 16-count corruption conviction, thanked the police for their rapid action to secure the missing girl.
Police in Pennsylvania spotted Hernandez’ Hyundai about 300 miles from his Connecticut home. A state police trooper initiated a traffic stop, but Hernandez reportedly refused to yield. Other troopers soon joined the pursuit, according to the Courant.
Hernandez eventually lost control and crashed his car into a tractor trailer. The pursuing trooper crashed his vehicle into the rear of Hernandez’ car, and another police vehicle struck the trooper’s car. Aylin Hernandez suffered minor injuries in the crash, Fox News reported.
Immigration officials placed an immigration hold on Hernandez. Bridgeport officials have not indicated if they will honor the detainer. Bridgeport spokesperson Rowena White said Hernandez’ immigration status “was not part of the conversation today.” She called it a separate issue from the current investigation.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX.
Read More Stories About:
File Photo: U.S. Border Patrol
by BOB PRICE25 Feb 2017
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s injunction, reinstating Texas’ illegal alien harboring law. The three-judge panel poured out the plaintiff’s claim that renting houses or providing social services would put them at risk of prosecution.
“Because there is no reasonable interpretation by which merely renting housing or providing social services to an illegal alien constitutes ‘harboring…that person from detection,’ we reverse the injunction,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote in the opinion.
The appellate court ruled the plaintiffs, two Texas landlords, did not have standing because they were unable to show how the law put them at risk of prosecution, Courthouse News Service reported.
Breitbart Texas’ Lana Shadwick reported in April 2016 that a federal district court judge issued a temporary restraining order against the state from enforcing the anti-harboring provisions of Texas House Bill 11. Shadwick wrote:
The federal complaint states that “In his role as Executive Director of RAICES, Plaintiff Ryan provides shelter to immigrant women and children who are not authorized to be present in the U.S. and lack lawful immigration status. Many of the immigrant women and children sheltered by Plaintiff Ryan are asylum-seekers from East Africa and Central America who entered the U.S. without authorization and are in federal removal proceedings.”
The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on January 24 and sued Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety Steven C. McCraw, and members of the Texas Public Safety Commission.
The harboring provisions are part of a $800 million border security effort by the Texas Governor and the Texas legislature.
Breitbart Texas attended the ceremony when Abbott signed into law the toughest and most comprehensive border security plan of any state in the United States of America. The Governor noted that the Texas-Mexico border can be a gateway to crimes committed in other parts of the U.S.
As reported by Breitbart Texas, the legislative package provided historic levels of funding to secure the border, established a child sex trafficking prevention unit, strengthened penalties for human traffickers, increased funding for the border protection unit, and seeks reimbursement from the federal government for Texas funds spent on border issues. The Governor declared the plan a legislative priority, and one of his emergency legislative items during his  State of the State address.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reacted to the court’s decision, saying, “Today’s ruling by the 5th Circuit will allow the state to fight the smuggling of humans and illegal contraband by transnational gangs and perpetrators of organized crime, not just on the border, but throughout Texas.”
The Texas AG explained the court adopted his office’s position that “Because there is no reasonable interpretation by which merely renting housing or providing social services to an illegal alien constitutes ‘harboring…that person from detection.’”
The law is intended to provide law enforcement and prosecutors an additional tool in fighting human smuggling and human trafficking. It makes the harboring of an illegal alien a third-degree felony, punishable by a two-ten year prison sentence and a fine of up to 10,000. It also adds a provision increasing the penalties and imposing a second-degree felony level if the alien is a minor, or if the harboring creates the possibility of serious bodily injury or death, Breitbart Texas reported. It created a first-degree felony crime for a situation where the person suffers sexual assault during the harboring, or the victim experiences serious bodily injury or death.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott called the initial ruling by the lower court, “absurd.”
Abbott’s press secretary John Wittman said in an email to Reuters that Abbot “was proud to sign HB 11 into law to crack down on human smuggling and increase penalties for perpetrators of these horrific crimes. He applauds today’s decision.”
Attorneys for the landlords said their clients were also pleased with the ruling. They stated the decision clarifies that the State cannot prosecute their clients for renting property or providing social services to illegal immigrants.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX.
Read More Stories About:Big Government, Breitbart Texas, Immigration, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, alien harboring, House Bill 11, Ken Paxton, Stash House
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.
FEBRUARY 24, 2017
By James Holbrooks
If Republicans in Arizona’s senate have their way, police in that state could soon have the power to seize assets and property from protesters, the Arizona Capitol Times reports.
Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.
SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.
But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated.
Essentially, under this bill cops could arrest anyone at a demonstration that suddenly turns violent, however peaceful it might’ve started. They would even be able to target people who had nothing to do the property damage.
Stephen Lemons, writing for the Phoenix New Times, covered a hearing on S.B. 1142 by Arizona’s Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
Highlighting that certain senate Democrats “noted the obvious: that public protests often involve different groups with varying tactics,” he pointed out that, hypothetically, peaceful protesters could be held responsible “for the violent actions of a different faction or of individuals who act out while others remain calm.”
But it gets even worse than that, as the Arizona Capitol Times pointed out Wednesday: “By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events.”
Planning events. Meaning cops will have the authority to investigate activists before the demonstrations even take place.
This is what Republican state senator Sonny Borrelli, the author of S.B. 1142, called targeting “the money source” in his defense of the bill before the committee meeting last week.
Citing the conservative notion that a legion of privately funded progressive protesters is clogging up governmental works all over the country, Borrelli said the law would go after those “paid to go out and create this damage.”
And if it takes cops infiltrating political groups on the taxpayers’ dime — on the razor-thin pretext of maybe preventing a potentially violent demonstration down the road — so be it, at least according to Republican attitudes in Arizona.
“I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there,” state senator John Kavanagh said, referring to police authority under S.B. 1142 to investigate political demonstrations while in the planning stages.
“Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?” he also said.
Again, potential riot.
The bigger issue at play, as noted by the Arizona Capitol Times, is the chilling effect such legislation would have on free speech. After all, if a person could get arrested for simply participating in a political demonstration — regardless of their own peaceful motives and actions — that person might decline to get involved.
S.B. 1142 would actively enforce the notion of guilt by association. If would punish the innocent who are wishing only to exercise their right of free expression, all because of the actions of criminals.
Such legislation would further complicate an environment of political unrest, made of both positive and negative forces, as State Senator Martin Quezada, Democrat out of Phoenix,highlighted Wednesday:
When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community. Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they go too far.