Conservatism (US Politics)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is About to Face the Choice That Dooms Many Presidencies

      by

      As happens every time a new president is elected, Donald Trump is experiencing a sudden role reversal. His campaign to earn support from voters has ended abruptly and a new one has begun among donors and activists to earn his support for their priorities. The election was about tax cuts, or maybe cryptocurrency, the arguments go. What Americans really want, sir, is fewer protections on the job and a weaker safety net.This is the first moment when presidencies go wrong. Rather than prepare to govern on behalf of the electorate that put them in power — especially the independent swing voters who by definition provide the margin of victory in a two-party system — new presidents, themselves typically members of the donor and activist communities, convince themselves that their personal preferences are the people’s as well. Two years later, their political capital expended and their agendas in shambles, their parties often suffer crushing defeats in midterm elections.As he looks toward his new term, Mr. Trump could claim a mandate to lead however he wishes, huddle with his supporters at Mar-a-Lago and then see how much of their agenda he can advance before his popularity falls too far to effect further change. That is the formula that has left a nation seemingly resigned to the loss of both common purpose and institutional competence. It is not a formula for a successful presidency, let alone for making America great again.He has another option. He is an iconoclastic leader with a uniquely unfiltered relationship to the American people and a disdain for the chattering class of consultants. He is also the first president since Grover Cleveland to get a second shot at a first term. He has already experienced the bruising tax fight that helped bring his approval rating down to 36 percent a year after his inauguration, the failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the loss of more than 40 House seats and control of the chamber in a midterm election. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, he made a promise to “every citizen” that he would “fight for you, for your family and your future” and that “this will truly be the golden age of America.” Achieving that will require focusing on the challenges and respecting the values broadly shared by not only his voters, but also many others who might come to support him.Take immigration. A promise to secure the border has long been a central aspect of Mr. Trump’s appeal, and Democrats are now clambering to get on his side of the issue. A Trump administration serving American voters would stanch the flow of migrants with tough border enforcement and asylum restrictions, reverse the Biden administration’s lawlessness by removing recent arrivals and protect American workers and businesses by mandating that employers use the E-Verify program to confirm the legal status of the people who work for them. That program, which strikes at the harm that illegal immigration does to American workers, is wildly popular. A recent survey of 2,000 adults conducted by my organization, American Compass, in partnership with YouGov, found 78 percent support overall and 68 percent support even among Democrats. Law-abiding businesses tend to like it, too — they’re tired of getting undercut by competitors that get away with breaking the rules.That’s the path to solving the problem. Mr. Trump will hear a lot of counterarguments from the affluent and influential class that builds its business model on underpaid, undocumented labor, especially in industries such as construction and hospitality, where he has personal experience, as well as in agriculture. Those voices are likely to suggest that instead he condescend to the masses with border theater and hostile rhetoric, while expanding temporary worker programs. To this end, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who opposes the E-Verify program on libertarian grounds, has already been mentioned as a potential candidate for secretary of agriculture. Moves like that will keep the guests at Mr. Trump’s golf clubs happy but ensure growing frustration and disillusion elsewhere.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Win Is Explained by Right and Left Media Outlets

      by

      Media outlets across the political spectrum offered very different explanations about why Donald J. Trump won the presidential election this week.On the right, some media outlets said Mr. Trump had won because of the left’s embrace of what they called extreme political views, while others focused on how Americans were deeply dissatisfied with the economy under President Biden, which Vice President Kamala Harris defended.Outlets on the left were more divided in their explanations. Some said American voters had chosen to “burn it all to the ground” by choosing Mr. Trump. Others blamed the Democratic Party as a whole, arguing that Democrats had failed to connect with voters on key issues, and that Ms. Harris had lost by defending what those commentators saw as a broken system.Here’s how a few outlets have covered the last few days in political news:FROM THE RIGHTBreitbart-Breitbart, a conservative outlet, highlighted that Americans were upset with how Democrats had handled the economy, and argued that Mr. Trump’s victory was a “mandate for Trumponomics.”In one article, the reporter John Carney ticked through what he saw as the reasons behind Mr. Trump’s victory. He pointed to the costs of basic necessities like groceries, housing and health care, all of which had soared over the last four years, as well as fears surrounding high levels of immigration. Americans, in Mr. Carney’s view, wanted “less inflation, more economic nationalism and an economy they could feel great about again.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      There Will Always Be a Trump. That’s Only Part of the Problem.

      by

      Because we forget history, we forget that the American experiment cannot succeed without constant, courageous leadership. Our nation is not inherently good and our high ideals are often eclipsed by our baser nature. This has been true since our founding, and it is true now.We also know that if American ideals depend on a single party for their protection, then that effort is doomed to fail. It’s not that America is one election from extinction. Our nation is not that fragile. But it can regress. It can forsake its ideals. And millions of people can suffer as a result.I’m writing those words in the context of a presidential contest that already represents a national failure. Even if Kamala Harris wins on Tuesday, there should be relief, not lasting joy. The United States will have come within an eyelash of electing a man who tried to overturn an election to cling to power.While Donald Trump’s individual actions were unprecedented, the idea that a critical mass of Americans would embrace a demagogue should not be a surprise.Last week, I helped host a fireside chat with Susan Eisenhower, the founder and expert in residence at the Eisenhower Institute at Gettysburg College. She’s also Dwight D. Eisenhower’s granddaughter. During our conversation, she told a story that I’d forgotten — one with direct relevance to the present moment.In the aftermath of World War II, there was intense interest in General Eisenhower’s potential political career. He’d never voted before he left the Army in 1948. Both parties courted him, but the Republican Party needed him.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Where Do Nikki Haley Voters Turn?

      by

      For Kamala Harris to win, are there enough Nikki Haley voters and other disaffected Republicans who will vote for her or sit this one out?It’s kind of incredible that it might all come down to this group. The Haley voter obviously isn’t the whole story of the election; there are all kinds of voters moving in and out of the edges of the two parties now, from the people red-pilled by the Covid era to those voting first on Israel and Gaza. But if Donald Trump loses again, maybe it will be due to the same problem that has been there for him from the beginning — the Republicans who didn’t like him in the first place, those in the suburbs, the more moderate women.Under the category of the Haley voter there are stability-minded, Constitution-focused traditionalists who can’t really get past Jan. 6, temperamental moderates who care about character and dislike chaos, for whom Mr. Trump has always been a tough sell, and — probably these people more than anything — just the kinds of voters, women especially, who voted a lot for Republicans before but on some deep, cellular level blanch at government now deciding abortion policy and the broader health complications that can be involved, regardless of how they feel about abortion itself.Those voters, in particular, might be described as having a conservatism organized around privacy and intentions, specifically not trusting the government in a world where Texas passes a law that allows a neighbor to sue another for abetting an abortion or a politician can’t seem to understand why a 50-something woman would still care about reproductive rights.What does some data tell us about Haley voters? In one of its weekly releases, Blueprint, a Democratic strategy firm, profiled the Haley voter based on a survey of nearly 800 Republicans and independents who voted for her in the primaries. It’s a small but notable group of people, with 59 percent who said they voted for Mr. Trump in 2020 but only 45 percent who said they would do so again in 2024. That slice of voters could decide a narrow election, and that’s not even taking into account the need for Ms. Harris to retain the Republicans who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 or the ones who are similarly inclined but didn’t bother voting in the Republican primaries this year.Blueprint found that one of the “most persuasive” criticisms of the Republican Party for this group of voters was that it “opposes abortion too much” (with 42 percent saying that described the party “very well”). They cared about the economy, immigration and national security; they were worried that Ms. Harris would be too extreme and Mr. Trump too erratic. In Blueprint’s polling, Haley voters had a lot of remaining favor for George W. Bush and John McCain and liked Dick Cheney more than Liz Cheney, whose support was underwater with the group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How a Tiny Panel, Up for Election, Could Steer Arizona Away From Clean Power

      by

      The vote, in a sunny state with huge solar potential, reflects a growing nationwide fight over America’s energy transition.As Arizona voters go the polls, they have more control over their state’s power plants and climate policies than they might realize.This year three of the five seats are up for grabs on the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates electric utilities. The commission has authority over how electricity is generated, among other things, and what customers pay.In recent years, it has taken steps toward rolling back a clean-energy mandate passed by a previous Republican-led board. It has also made it harder to build community solar in a state renowned for its sunniness, its critics say, and easier to build new fossil-fuel-burning power plants.These boards exist in states nationwide, and while most are appointed, similarly contentious races playing out in states like Louisiana and Montana, where they’re debating the future of coal power, which is particularly dirty, and what role natural gas, another fossil fuel, should have.“It’s a fourth branch of government that nobody knows about who’s in your pocket every day,” said Robert Burns, a Republican who served on Arizona’s commission for eight years.Starting two decades ago, the Republican-controlled commission had encouraged a transition to renewable energy based on simple economics: Renewables were getting cheaper than fossil fuels. It initially required utilities it regulates to become 15-percent renewable by 2025 and later, during Mr. Burns’s tenure, he sought to eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants by 2050.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Mega-Donors Pour $8 Million Into Late Push Against N.Y. Abortion Measure

      by

      A late-stage effort to defeat a New York State ballot measure that would enshrine a right to abortion into the State Constitution has been bolstered by $8 million in donations from a handful of conservative donors.The Vote No on Prop 1 political action committee received $6.5 million from Dick Uihlein, a scion of one of the founders of Schlitz beer and the founder of the shipping company Uline. Along with his wife, Mr. Uihlein has given generously to former President Donald J. Trump, as well as to groups opposed to gay and transgender rights. Last year, Mr. Uihlein spent $4 million to defeat Ohio’s abortion amendment, providing the bulk of the funding against the measure.The committee also received $1 million from Thomas J. Tisch, a financier who was a key supporter of Lee Zeldin’s unsuccessful bid for governor of New York in 2022.The late infusion of cash is expected to amplify opponents’ messaging surrounding the measure, known as the Equal Rights Amendment.Conceived of as a way to safeguard abortion after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the initiative would also expand legal protections to people based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability and national origin.Democrats had hoped that the ballot initiative could help boost turnout by energizing voters who care about abortion rights. Public sentiment in New York appeared to be on the ballot’s side: A recent Siena College poll shows that some 69 percent of New Yorkers approve of the amendment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Abortion as an Issue in the Election

      by

      More from our inbox:Veterans as Poll WorkersAn Immigrant’s StoryPolitical Messages: Time to Turn Up the Sound Allison Dinner/EPA, via ShutterstockTo the Editor:Re “November’s Second-Most-Important Election,” by David French (column, Oct. 14):I find it difficult to understand why the heart has become a determiner of fetal life in abortion discussions and law when it’s the brain that makes us truly human.According to much neurological research, the brain doesn’t reach its major development until the end of the second trimester, about 24 weeks into a pregnancy, also known as viability. The brain then continues to develop through the ninth month of pregnancy, and certain parts, such as the frontal cortex, are not fully developed until adults reach their mid-20s.All of us, even lawmakers, should pay attention to the neurological science instead of emotional reactions to sounds.Ellen CreaneGuilford, Conn.To the Editor:I personally am deeply conflicted on the issue of abortion, but the problem I have with many pro-life supporters is that they never talk about support after the baby is born.Live babies and children need diapers and food and child care and good schools and support for college or learning a trade and safe schools and streets. If you have no concrete plans to eliminate child poverty, improve public education and put gun controls in place, can you really say that you support children?Ending the conversation (and legislation) at birth is not pro-life, but pro-childbirth.Margaret DowlingPhiladelphiaWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney Campaigns With Harris and Calls on Her Party to Reject Trump

      by

      It was an exercise in unsubtle and unlikely campaign optics: a Democratic vice president who is running for the presidency. A Republican former congresswoman who is the daughter of a staunchly conservative vice president. A small city known as the birthplace of the Republican Party in the middle of a battleground state.On Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the most prominent Republican to endorse her campaign, traveled to Ripon in central Wisconsin where meetings in 1854 helped form the Republican Party. Just a mile away from a one-room schoolhouse where those gatherings were held, the pair tore into former President Donald J. Trump for his role in igniting a riot at the Capitol, and they warned of the threat he poses to democracy should he return to power.Ms. Cheney said that, in November, putting patriotism ahead of partisanship should not merely be an aspiration — “it is our duty.”Her remarks, delivered with an air of somber restraint, were as much a public indictment of Mr. Trump as they were an endorsement of Ms. Harris. Calling his candidacy “a threat unlike any we have faced before,” she called on conservatives to join her in an “urgent cause” to elect Ms. Harris and to reject what she called the former president’s “depraved cruelty.”“I know that she will be a president who will defend the rule of law,” Ms. Cheney said of Ms. Harris, “and I know that she will be a president who can inspire all of our children and, if I might say so, especially our little girls.”The joint appearance was one of the starkest examples to date of how Ms. Harris has endeavored to pitch herself as a unifying president who values pragmatism over partisanship. Her overarching goal is to win over moderate and independent voters who will be crucial to delivering her a decisive victory.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More