There’s a group of individuals on the Right that claim to be conservative but continually refuse to acknowledge what time it is. This presents obvious challenges in achieving honest and open intellectual debate about solutions that can be implemented strategically to strengthen a nation that has been downtrodden by globalist elites for decades.
Instead of acting with prudence, these individuals cling to their belief systems with dogmatic fervor. As a result, these individuals not only lack statesmanship, but academic credibility.
Instead of acting with prudence, these individuals cling to their belief systems with dogmatic fervor. As a result, these individuals not only lack statesmanship, but academic credibility.
If you’ve ever read @KevinRobertsTX book, Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America, you would know that he does not think “Heritage has been a malign influence on U.S. trade policy” nor does he “blow with the political breeze.”
In fact, entirely the opposite is true.
In fact, entirely the opposite is true.
To understand @Heritage and @KevinRobertsTX in this moment, you can refer to an excerpt from Kevin’s book. It reads,
“The only way to revive our country, to breathe life into the bones of America’s great institutions now haggard with age, decay, and bloat, is to burn away the rot and restore a shared vision of a glorious future.
This will require many on the right to reconsider some of their unquestioned maxims. There’s a scene in the Cormac McCarthy novel No Country for Old Men in which hit man Anton Chigurh has taken a fellow hired gun captive. Holding him at gunpoint and asking about his life’s philosophy, Chirgurh asks him, ‘If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?’
It is a question we must ask ourselves. After all, if what the old conservative coalition understood to be its foundational principles led us to this—the total domination of the Uniparty, the demise of the American working class, and the erosion of the institutions that defined American life—of what use are those principles?
The old conservative movement held that if you just got government out of the way, the free market, civil society, individual liberty, the nuclear family, and more would take care of themselves. Forty years ago, it might have had the right idea. But in today’s America, a conservative movement that limits itself to this stale program is co-signing the Uniparty’s euthanasia of the American nation.
When you reach a dead end, no matter how far you have traveled to get there, no matter how historic and well trod the path has been, no matter the strength of the arguments that led in that direction, there is no point debating the matter anymore. You must pick yourself up and go in a different direction.”
“The only way to revive our country, to breathe life into the bones of America’s great institutions now haggard with age, decay, and bloat, is to burn away the rot and restore a shared vision of a glorious future.
This will require many on the right to reconsider some of their unquestioned maxims. There’s a scene in the Cormac McCarthy novel No Country for Old Men in which hit man Anton Chigurh has taken a fellow hired gun captive. Holding him at gunpoint and asking about his life’s philosophy, Chirgurh asks him, ‘If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?’
It is a question we must ask ourselves. After all, if what the old conservative coalition understood to be its foundational principles led us to this—the total domination of the Uniparty, the demise of the American working class, and the erosion of the institutions that defined American life—of what use are those principles?
The old conservative movement held that if you just got government out of the way, the free market, civil society, individual liberty, the nuclear family, and more would take care of themselves. Forty years ago, it might have had the right idea. But in today’s America, a conservative movement that limits itself to this stale program is co-signing the Uniparty’s euthanasia of the American nation.
When you reach a dead end, no matter how far you have traveled to get there, no matter how historic and well trod the path has been, no matter the strength of the arguments that led in that direction, there is no point debating the matter anymore. You must pick yourself up and go in a different direction.”
@DominicJPino and others should be asking themselves in this moment, “If complete opposition to tariffs brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”
You see, @Heritage is willing to do what is difficult by actually wrestling with long held maxims, in the pursuit of restoring America’s civic life, defeating the institutional root causes of America’s decline, and taking back our country for good.
This is who @Heritage has always been, and always will be.
You see, @Heritage is willing to do what is difficult by actually wrestling with long held maxims, in the pursuit of restoring America’s civic life, defeating the institutional root causes of America’s decline, and taking back our country for good.
This is who @Heritage has always been, and always will be.
Even the most ardent supporters of free trade, like Adam Smith, recognized the strategic benefits of tariffs—especially in instances of reciprocity.
“There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of… When some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country, it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, whether a similar restraint upon the importation of some of their manufactures into ours might not be the only means of procuring the repeal of their improper regulations.”
— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II
“There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of… When some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country, it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, whether a similar restraint upon the importation of some of their manufactures into ours might not be the only means of procuring the repeal of their improper regulations.”
— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II
Perhaps, and I say this with all due respect to @DominicJPino and @NRO, but maybe the real headline today should be:
Since its founding in 1961, National Review was the go to place for conservatives with principles to discuss issues. Emphasis on "was"
Since its founding in 1961, National Review was the go to place for conservatives with principles to discuss issues. Emphasis on "was"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
