Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In March 2025, in the thread "Re: OT, out", Umm asked the members: "Do you think it is because America is made up of magical soil that makes businesses based in America magically profitable?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) |
Author: Dope1 ⎊  😊 😞
Number: of 86289 
Subject: Re: Philip Roth on Trump
Date: 05/23/24 8:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Reagan Revolution, which basically crystallized modern conservatism in its current form, was based on the "fusion" of three strands of the conservative movement: social conservatism, free markets, and a hawkish foreign policy.

Sure. Is something appropriate at one point in time supposed to be frozen in amber and *always* kept that way? If that's the standard, what would JFK say about today's democrats? Think FDR would be down with letting criminals have more rights than victims?

Pendulums always swing about a center axis.

Right-wing populism rejects those premises. They very much reject letting private markets determine where the jobs go, where international labor and capital flow, or even the idea of a global free trade system at all. They want the government to intervene against private actors (like, say, a completely private university) rather than leave it up to the markets - they very much want government to be an active and powerful participant in deciding contested issues among private actors. That's an express rejection of the fusionist conservatism that Goldwater, Buckley and the National Review espoused back in the day - where issues of virtue are left to private actors, not the remit of the state.

They don't "reject" letting private markets determine where things go, so I don't think that's correct: what is asked for instead is a fighting chance that's aligned with the national interest.

Is it in the United States' best interest to buy critical products and medicines from China? Or to allow China to willfully evade restrictions under NAFTA and dump cheap components into Mexico? Or to continue to play the game of allowing them to steal American IP at will?

As for isolationism, that's more nuanced. Asking NATO countries to spend what they're required to spend as outlined in the charter is hardly inflammatory (and in fact Gert Wilders' new government in the Netherlands is formalizing doing exactly that).

I'm not sure what your example of 'intervene against private actors' refers to.

The only major departure from conservative ideology is that of fiscal restraint. Trump was horrible on the score, and that's a pre-COVID statement.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 86,214 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community