So...Ireland's a problem for the woke now

Ireland it seems has drifted more towards grassroots populism than in past.  Well, that is, except for its disgraceful politicians.

The third foreign indicator of Republican midterm win already happened.

Remember when I mentioned how England and Italy both have moved towards populism?  It's part of a backlash against woke progressive social justice elitist crappy governance.  It's about time, in every single case.  Speaking of which, I forgot to mention that it also happened in Sweden back in September:

Sweden’s Sept. 11 elections shocked intellectuals throughout the West. The Sweden Democrats – a nationalist-populist party founded in 1988 with neo-Nazi allegiances but which turned away from fascism in the early 2000s and now explicitly rejects it – gave the country’s right a governing majority by earning the second-largest number of votes. The intellectuals’ shock, however, shows that they have not been paying attention. Had they been examining voters’ discontents in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and giving thought to the destabilizing consequences for liberal democracy in the West posed by elite imperiousness, overreach, and underperformance, they would have seen the right-wing reaction brewing.

The same thing is likely to happen in the United States. In 2016 the U.K. votes to exit the Eurpoean Union.  The Brexit vote would foreshadow the election of president Trump later that year. This year's midterms have seen three precursors to a Republican victory in the House and Senate.  Let's hope the tea leaves portend the same for America this time around.

While you weren't looking (or being told) France caves

Remember that Paris Agreement on climate change that president Trump withdrew from on behalf of the United States?  Turns out people in France are not so keen on the imposition of more taxes on gasoline either.  As a result France's leader Macron has backed down, for 6 now at least:

Populism it turns out, is not strictly an American phenomenon.

A reaction to reactions on Trump speech (left and right)

Donald Trump's speech to congress last night was about as expected. The reaction was not what I'd expected though. Nevertheless, come to think of it, the reaction is not at all surprising. In fact it's informative, or more aptly, confirmational that while perceptions are not changing, tactics definitely are.

Let's start with CNN, and their relatively positive response. It's possible that CNN has been licking their wounds from the banishment from the White House press conferences, and felt obligated to ratchet down the constant negative spin. Maybe they've realized that it's costing them viewership, or credibility, or both. I don't think that's their motivation, but take a look at the result, regardless of the reason:

(CNN) President Donald Trump's first address to Congress received largely positive reviews from viewers, with 57% who tuned in saying they had a very positive reaction to the speech, according to a new CNN/ORC poll of speech-watchers.

Nearly 7-in-10 who watched said the President's proposed policies would move the country in the right direction and almost two-thirds said the president has the right priorities for the country. Overall, about 7-in-10 said the speech made them feel more optimistic about the direction of the country.

There's no negative spin there. The negative spin would have been not to share the poll results, because that's pretty good for president Trump. And then there was this from their semi-permanent panelist and socialist darling Van Jones:

Clearly CNN is cutting back on the vitriolic attacks and admitting, yes, Trump is president. He's a president to be disagreed with on issues, but still president. They are not alone though. And that's why I don't think this is about access rights, or ratings. It's about a different tack on the liberal agenda. Maybe the smart Democrats are finally being heard. 

The Washington Post, in addition to highlighting the van Jones piece above in an opinion piece, also had this story about liberal actress Jennifer Garner as an unlikely Trump ally:

Jennifer Garner has not given up on Donald Trump’s Washington.

The 44-year-old actress spent the weekend lobbying the town’s pillars of power to support early education for poor rural children. She spent Friday on Capitol Hill meeting dozens of top staff members. On Saturday, she delivered the keynote address before the annual National Governors Association winter meeting here. A potential sit-down with Ivanka Trump, who is advocating for more funding for child care, fell apart because of scheduling conflicts, but Garner remained optimistic about a face-to-face discussion soon.

And Politico;

Voters seem to agree, regardless of how they feel about Trump's priorities. A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that 56 percent of 2,000 registered voters polled Feb. 24 through Feb. 26 say that Trump is staying true to his 2016 campaign message, and 66 percent say Trump has accomplished what was expected of him — or more. Overall, half of voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 45 percent disapprove.

There's more but three pillars of liberal punditry all saying Trump was presidential last night, he hit the right notes (politically) etc., is enough to make the point. Democrat elites have started saying the impeachment talk has to stop. They get it apparently; they have only been hurting themselves with the never ending drumbeat of hate. That's too bad for conservatives, because it was definitely working in our favor. That said, it doesn't mean that liberals will be able to fight on policy. They haven't tried that approach for decades, so I'd expect some rust. Furthermore, who is to say they can sustain a logic-based counter-argument long enough not to fall back into angry Social Justice Warrior space? The new approach is both refreshing and annoying at the same time, but it isn't likely to be significantly more or less effective than the riot-in-the-streets approach. What matters now is results, and the results are going to be driven, or not driven by president Trump. In other words, the Republicans have the ball; they're on offense. Democrats seem to finally understand that they are on defense and do not get act, only react. If president Trump is successful, how they oppose him won't matter. But if he fails to deliver, how they oppose does matter. That's where the policy driven opposition over the impeachment type arguments will matter.

Interestingly at the other end of the spectrum, libertarian John Zeigler believes Trump has killed conservatism.

...we would not have massive increases in government spending and power instituted under a ‘Republican’ president, thus ending, for all time, any chance that we ever return to Reagan-like principles of smaller government before we inevitably suffer a financial implosion under the weight of massive debt.

For the first time since taking office, Trump was, for him, remarkably disciplined and, yes, really rather ‘presidential.’ Ironically, that was mostly because he stuck strictly to the very same teleprompter which he has roundly mocked Barack Obama for relying on too much.

While he is no Obama when it comes to his mastery of reading skills, he benefits from such incredibly low expectations that him simply not having a Ron Burgundy-like Anchorman meltdown makes him seem like Brian Williams in his prime. There were no moments of extreme egotism (at least by his standards), no attacks on the media or even Hillary, and no overtly apparent bald-faced lies. He didn’t even say anything nice about his BFF Vladimir Putin.

He hit on all the major points that got him elected (even while shifting his positions on some of them) and laid out a populist agenda, which had to sound real good to a lot of ‘regular’ people who haven’t already completely written him off.

Maybe the left has, pardon the phrase Moved On, but it appears many of those who are/were/identify with the Never Trump crowd on the right, still might not have managed to do so. That's a pity. Donald Trump may have recognized before many on the right, that conservatism of the Reagan era is not possible in this era of demographics and coalitions of overlapping interests. Reagan era conservatism is not forever gone. The road back to it however, is more than a single step. President Trump's delivery on jobs will make further steps back possible. The path back to real conservatism in America might not be the straight line conservatives would hope for, but it is a path. And considering how far along the progressive socialist path America has travelled since the 1980's, any path back should be welcome. It's a bad sign that more elites on the left seem to get that Trump's populism presents an opportunity than those elites on the right seem to realize. They may better recognize Trump as transitory to something else. That's the real danger to the future of conservatism, not that Trump wants to spend a trillion on infrastructure and won't get it, or will only get a portion of it.

Democrats Terminated?

Yesterday I was writing about how three stories showed how the liberal media was empowering president Trump to further victories, the day before, Brandon J. Weichert had a piece that took the view that the Democrats are facing permanent doom one step further;

Truth is, notwithstanding the “days of rage” the Left has been living out since Trump’s election, it’s been clear that the Democratic Party’s leadership grasped it could not maintain its high dudgeon for another two years (especially not with 25 Democrat-controlled Senate seats up for grabs in the 2018 midterms). After nearly four months of protests, public vitriol, and personal attacks directed against Republicans, the Democratic leadership has chosen a run-of-the-mill Democrat to lead them.

Perez is no moderate. He is a conventional liberal. So, while it is unlikely that one will get a Scoop Jackson-type of Democrat to moderate the influences of the manic Leftist base, one can expect a more programmatic, less populist version of Leftism on display. The Democrats are shaping up to nominate a Joe Biden-type in 2020 (possibly with Elizabeth Warren as the running mate, in order to satisfy the base).

But, barring some catastrophic event in the Trump presidency, this tactic will not work. Elements of the Left recognize that populism has taken hold in the country. However, they cannot bring themselves to understand that the explosion of populism is far more likely to benefit the Right than the Left.

He's not wrong and as a conservative, I'd say it's definitely a feel-good read. He argues that the Democrats in large have not understood the populism shift (in a larger view, the need to fix a system that has stopped working properly). He argues that they are left without labor (whom Trump has co-opted) and by selecting an insider they've cast aside their new core of socialists and are left with nothing. He may be right as far as 2018 and 2020 are concerned. To whom do Democrats have appeal left? Racial groups? Women? That didn't work in 2016.

But it's too easy to suggest that Democrats are done forever, especially because of a DNC leadership selection. While the new leader matters directionally, and it indicates that Democrats are sticking with the insider party elite, it doesn't follow, ipso facto to permanent minority status for Democrats. Five years ago people were saying that about Republicans but like Terminators, we knew that wasn't going to be the case. Insider elites can raise a lot of money. And while it didn't work for Hillary Clinton, that doesn't mean it can't ever work again. Money is still power, but it requires a voice that resonates. Someday Democrats will have that again. I hope it takes decades. In fact a successful Trump presidency means it could take many decades just like the FDR new deal is still the paradigm that governs government. I like what Brandon J. Weichert has to say. I just am skeptical. A decade in the wilderness will do that to you.

Team Bush lining up behind Hillary is good news for Trump

Hank Paulson, A Bush insider has endorsed Hillary Clinton.  No really. If ever there were a wedge for Democratic voters blind support of Hillary Clinton, a Bush team endorsement, or a Bush endorsement, would be it.  Remember, the second Bush was Hitler according to those on the left.  A flood of Bush team support for Hillary Clinton might be enough to push Sanders supporters into the Trump camp.  

It's a weird circumstance.  But it is a dramatic opportunity for Trump, and for the GOP.  Think about it - if there's no difference between Bush and Clinton, why vote Clinton if you are fed up with a status quo that's leaving the middle class behind? And if Bushites are supporting Hillary, is there really any real difference between the two?

And the wave of anti-establishmentarianism isn't just evident in the U.K. BREXIT vote.  Iceland just elected a novice outsider too. It's hitting closer and closer to home.

Why was the BREXIT result a surprise to everyone?

With waves of unfettered immigration, lost economic sovereignty a divorce from the EU was inevitable.  I'm surprised frankly that the vote was as close as it was.  It's led to a volatile  market reaction, bad news, but it should have been predictable.

In terms of the U.S., the populist nature of the vote portends well for Donald Trump''s candidacy.  Yes there's an ocean in between the U.K. and the U.S., but the common thread is the understanding that the status quo is not working for most people.  Hillary Clinton represents a corrupt status quo, Donald Trump represents a bull in a China shop style of change.  The BREXIT vote tells you where a lot of people's heads are at on that choice.

Picture of the Day: Grassroots Populism

Every conservative blogger, Palin supporter or not, should post the same picture themselves.  See below.

The takeaway: If liberals are ridiculing it, it must be worth embracing.