“But in 2016 the Republican Party collapsed in the face of what amounted to a hostile takeover. Democrats are at less risk, helped by Joe Biden’s politically astute combination of leftist policies and a centrist tone. “

I encourage everyone to go read this article to find out if they could possibly meet Bret Stevens’s definition of a “true liberal” without being a genuine fascist.

Bret/NYT is right about the free market needing some modulation/regulation. I can even agree with much of his "liberal" shopping list.

But he's absolutely brain-dead ignorant about the things he labels as "illiberal" on the right.
The need for similar restraints on immigration is really a no-brainer. Immigration is not always a benefit, and rational people need to start behaving like they understand that. It depends completely on who and how many. And if you don't believe that, I hope you have a close personal encounter with a MS-13 member.

And if he's so damn sure that elections were up-and-up above board, he should have no trouble proving it. There are enough warning flags about the last one that if he wants there to be respect for election outcomes, he better put his money where his mouth is. That means designing bullet-proof voting systems and bullet-proof voter registration systems. And do it now, not kicking the can down to the next election.

I posted this the links thread today and it was meant for this thread. Apologies all around.

Here's an interesting viewpoint from Jonah Goldberg on the rampant illiberalism pervading both sides of our political aisles.

Karen Stenner, an economist who studies authoritarianism, has identified what she calls an “authoritarian predisposition.” She is quick to note that authoritarianism isn’t synonymous with conservatism or any other ideological framework. Authoritarianism, she writes, “is a functional disposition concerned with maximizing ‘oneness’ and ‘sameness’ especially in conditions where the things that make us one and the same — common authority, and shared values — appear to be under threat.” Historically, American conservatism has balanced conflicting impulses. It has been antagonistic to sudden, drastic, social change while at the same time it fully embraced — at least in theory — the free market. The problem is that economic liberty fuels change more than almost anything else. What Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction” constantly replaces old means of production with new ones. Moreover, most conservatives were defenders of existing traditional institutions and norms. This deference to courts, elections and the rule of law put structural limits on the reach of culturally conservative programs.

A similar uneasy fusion endured on the left. In economics, capitalism was seen as something that needed to be harnessed, controlled or even caged. But in the cultural marketplace, the left had its own version of creative destruction.

But both sides kept these internal tensions in check. Now the equilibrium is breaking down before our eyes. Both left and right have their own versions of “cancel culture” now. Leading conservatives routinely heap scorn on “market fundamentalism,” championing everything from protectionism and industrial planning to state meddling in social media platforms (despite the fact that the right dominates the very outlets they insist are “censoring” them). Prominent intellectuals flirt with authoritarianism, and even monarchy.

On the left, hostility to free speech and open debate is even more intense. In July, when a collection of mostly progressive intellectuals and writers issued an open letter calling for a renewed commitment to free speech, left-wing blowback was intense.

It’s not just on issues of expression that the left’s liberal consensus has come apart. Due process on college campuses is now scorned as reactionary. Religious liberty is tolerable, so long as it doesn’t conflict with progressive values. It is rapidly becoming a mainstream position on the left to favor packing the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

Ms. Stenner argues that the authoritarian predisposition is triggered when the settled order becomes unsettled and an instinctive panic sets in. Whatever the cause(s) of these chaotic times may be (I have my theories), I think the chaos has triggered vast numbers of people on the left and the right to embrace illiberalism.

Both movements share an antipathy toward the bedrock American and classically liberal right to be wrong, to live differently, to care about unfashionable things, or simply to not care about fashionable ones. Dissent is a kind of assault that must be policed and silenced, by state or cultural power — or both. Conformity must be imposed. The twin fads of socialism and nationalism are best understood as competing attempts to impose sameness and order on each side’s own terms.

In this climate, the new centrists can be ideologically conservative or progressive according to the old definitions, but east and west share a common discomfort with the constant demand to catastrophize our politics in order impose orthodoxy on everyone. And amid the cacophony, such centrism can be quite lonely.

"When someone demands blind obedience, you’d be a fool not to peek." ~ Jim Fiebig

"to state meddling in social media platforms (despite the fact that the right dominates the very outlets they insist are “censoring” them)" ~Conan's quote

Care to point out who these rightwing outlets are?

Both Goldberg and Stephens see America from a New York perspective. One that most of the US doesn't share. Which is why they are so lost trying to talk about anywhere outside of their cultural bubble.

“Care to point out who these rightwing outlets are”

He thinks that Fox News is “right wing” I would call them on average barely to the right of center left.

Care to point out who these rightwing outlets are? ~ Ben at March 18, 2021 7:36 AM

I'm not sure what Goldberg's getting at with that one. I said his article was interesting, I didn't say I agreed with all of it.

I do agree, however, with his contention that both parties are getting more illiberal and engaging in their own brands of cancel culture to enforce party uniformity; and that the [true*] center is getting to be a lonely place to be.

* Forgot the term, but Amy's used it in the past, that expresses the condition whereby the definition of the political "center" shifts with the bias of the voter.

Painful to watch this pantomime of "even handedness" from the Grey Lady's conservative house n*gg*r. Straining to find anything on the Conservative side that comes near the nasty no-holds-barred kulturkampf now promoted by the left.

This is not exactly a new observation. Was this really the beat quote you could find?

The Overton Window, Conan? is that the term you're looking for?

The Overton Window, Conan? is that the term you're looking for? ~ IRA Darth Aggie at March 18, 2021 8:05 AM

Yes, Darth, that's it. Thanks.

"Leading conservatives routinely heap scorn on “market fundamentalism,” championing everything from protectionism and industrial planning to state meddling in social media platforms (despite the fact that the right dominates the very outlets they insist are “censoring” them)." ~Goldberg

No Isab, Fox wouldn't fit in that sentence. Goldberg seems to be claiming Twitter and Facebook are rightwing dominated platforms. Which is utter bunk.

The reality is Jonah Goldberg is an ardent NeverTrumper. He is trying to square the circle of his views now being leftwing. Trying to rationalize the irrational he is forced to lie to himself. And pretty poorly at that.

"and that the [true*] center is getting to be a lonely place to be." ~Conan

And that is where you are failing Conan. You define that as the center because that is where you are. And Arty thinks he is center too. There are a whole lot of centers running around and they don't appear to have anything to do with each other.

The reality is the US has already gone tribal. There are thousands of different competing tribes and no such thing as a center anymore. We don't have a unified culture. There are no common values and thus there is no common ground.

Claims that conservatives use cancel culture are hilarious. They are equating criticism with canceling. Please point out the professor who ever got fired for being an open communist or the journalist who lost her job for calling for men to be eliminated or the BLM activist canceled for calling for cities to be burnt down (which they actually did).
The military stand-down where they told all non-black soldiers they were racist this week is chilling, as is the nat guard still at the capitol and the order that states may not lower taxes. control control control is heading in a totalitarian direction.

The reality is Jonah Goldberg is an ardent NeverTrumper. ~ Ben at March 18, 2021 9:05 AM

Yes. And, while I'm not an ardent Trump supporter, the whole "neverTrump" movement struck me as reactionary and just a bit over the top; unnecessarily divisive - especially since many of his policies were exactly the things many of the neverTrumpers had been arguing in favor of for years: lower taxes, fewer regulations, immigration control, fewer foreign military interventions, etc. I think it was more a class thing than a matter of politics - i.e., "I refuse to be associated with that boor."

==========

Claims that conservatives use cancel culture are hilarious. They are equating criticism with canceling. ~ cc at March 18, 2021 9:18 AM

I wonder what Liz Cheney might say to that. There's already talk of primarying her in the next election and she's been censured by her state's GOP. All because she voted against Trump.

While cancel culture has not been a mainstay of conservative circles, it is a tactic in which more conservatives are engaging of late as accusations of "RINO" are being tossed about seemingly indiscriminately.

Both parties are fracturing; and the fallout ain't gonna be pretty.

“I wonder what Liz Cheney might say to that. There's already talk of primarying her in the next election and she's been censured by her state's GOP. All because she voted against Trump.”
Trump won Wyoming with over 70 percent of the vote here.

One of the real hazards of an actual working republic. Your constuitents don’t like you or agree with you, they vote you out of office.

I’m not sure this is cancelling, except in an incredibly fair democratic sense. Infinitely preferable to ousting her in the general by voting for the democrat.

The problem with the middle is, people think it means mediocrity. And it's the American way to pursue extreme anything - tacos, free-falls, even tactical footwear. It may be too late for the Bible, but we could use a set of common ties among us. Teaching the foundations of American liberty would be great.

It is funny Conan because I don't think you recognize your own efforts in fracturing things.

It wasn't that long ago you made a clear call for political purity and a declaration of political supremacy. Now I don't think that is what you intended to do. But it is still the clear message you sent when you tossed that Regan quote out.

Who stood up and echoed your call for compromise? Crid. An ardent NeverTrumper. Someone who wasn't willing to compromise even 1% while you called for others to compromised with you 20%. An association you saw no issue with.

When did you make your call? Right after a political purge by NeverTrump partisans. And clearly directed at those who were purged.

Intended or not you sent the clear message you aren't willing to compromise by 1% while others must compromise with you. Even here you are defining cancel culture so broadly that almost anything counts when it applies to an outspoken NeverTrump partisan, further reinforcing that message. At the same time you don't bring up any of the pro-Trump partisans who were purged and for whom a cancel culture definition would apply far more accurately. As they were purged by fellow politicians an not by the voters they are supposed to represent.

This recent purge has been a tactically sound move while being a major strategic blunder. NeverTrump groups have made it clear things will be their way or the highway. No compromise, no quarter. With a message of slavery or death it shouldn't be surprising that other groups in the Republican party aren't interested permanent surrender. Further than that the NeverTrumpers have made it clear they are far too dangerous for anyone else to compromise or work with them.

This is why your 'center' is such a lonely place, Conan. You've driven off everyone else.

One of the real hazards of an actual working republic. Your constuitents don’t like you or agree with you, they vote you out of office.

I’m not sure this is cancelling, except in an incredibly fair democratic sense. Infinitely preferable to ousting her in the general by voting for the democrat.

~ Isab at March 18, 2021 10:06 AM

It's along the lines of cancelling if the party, instead of accepting that she voted her conscience, is censuring her for not toeing the party line. If her constituents vote her out after a well-fought primary, that's democracy. She won't be entirely cancelled and should still be able to get a job in her field of expertise (JD from Univ. of Chicago) or as a lobbyist if she's voted out.

Still, her expulsion from the party's good graces is ominous and should not be looked undertaken lightly by a party actively condemning cancel culture on the part of people with whom it does not agree.

There were good arguments this last time both for and against impeaching Trump. The first time was a complete sham, a political temper tantrum.

After some thought about the second one, I came down on the side that he did not incite the violence, even if he was injudicious in his continued insistence on election fraud. He should have conceded earlier than he finally did. Nonetheless, I felt the impeachment was rushed and carelessly done; a political show trial rather than a reasoned effort to censure.

This view was reinforced by the recent WaPo "correction" of its anonymously-sourced characterization of Trump's phone call with Georgia officials, a characterization that was used in a careless effort to justify the impeachment proceedings.

==========

And it's the American way to pursue extreme anything - tacos.... ~ Spiderfall at March 18, 2021 10:57 AM

I'm up for some extreme tacos.

...but we could use a set of common ties among us. ~ Spiderfall at March 18, 2021 10:57 AM

I agree. We too often forget that we're all Americans. Partisanship, identity politics, and "cancel culture" are tearing us apart.

However, massive immigration from the Third World is not going to help establish those common ties. We need to be able to assimilate immigrants and the incoming volume is too high right now. It's not enough to just say "we're all Americans" because we're all physically here; we all need to actually be Americans, in citizenship, culture, language, and attitude.

==========

It wasn't that long ago you made a clear call for political purity and a declaration of political supremacy. Now I don't think that is what you intended to do. But it is still the clear message you sent when you tossed that Regan quote out. ~ Ben at March 18, 2021 11:48 AM

Ben, I'm not sure what "clear call for political purity" you're referring to, but the Reagan quote I believe you're referencing was call to compromise, not a call for political purity. I don't call for the Republicans to march in lockstep and I've often criticized the Democrats for doing so. A political party should be a collection of people with the same general political philosophy, but also a big tent welcoming and working out differences on specific issues.

“There were good arguments this last time both for and against impeaching Trump”

Really? Refresh my memory. What were they? Supposedly he was pressuring the Georgia Secretary of State to throw out votes, until they released the tape a few days ago, and it didn’t happen.

The only legitimate impeachment is one where you present the evidence, and then vote on it. I seem to recall Congress happily skipped the first part, and voted without it.

The senate and John Roberts refused to even hold a trial, rightly viewing it as a sham.

Is your memory different?

Liz was perfectly free to “vote her conscience” as a dedicated never Trumper. She exposed herself, and now if she wants to be in Congress she will ultimately need to find another state or change parties.

Tell the truth we may be stuck with her til 24 because of the primary system here in Wyoming. They are working to change it for 22 but it may not be possible to get it done that quick.

We don’t send our congress people up there to “vote their conscience” we send them to represent the interests of the party, and the people of Wyoming. When they vote with the dems to virtue signal on a meaningless impeachment, they are doing neither.

That is the trouble with messaging, Conan. As I said the message you sent likely wasn't the message you intended to send. But you sent your message of conquest and forced uniformity quite clearly. That you didn't intend to send that message is irrelevant. It was still sent.

For another example of epic message fail here is Al Green.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/541670-house-democrat-sits-on-capitol-steps-to-protest-extremist-threat

He wanted to send a message that he is brave and strong and doing his best to protect his constituents and this country. Instead the message he sent was that he is incompetent, dishonest, and a coward.

Scott Alexander (of Slate Star Codex) referred to liberalism (classical liberalism, encompassing free speech and rule of law, not the assembly of weird and evil things that fly under the liberal banner in the 'woke' world) is basically *a machine for preventing civil war*. I think there's much truth in this view.

https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/65533.html

Bret Stevens is totally wrong to view advocacy of tariffs and other kinds of trade restriction as some sign of illiberalism and authoritarianism. The US government raised most of its income from *tariffs* over much of its existence. The libertarian argument that you should be able to buy and sell from/to anyone you want falls apart when totalitarian governments are included in the mix.

We don’t send our congress people up there to “vote their conscience” we send them to represent the interests of the party, and the people of Wyoming. ~ Isab at March 18, 2021 1:29 PM

We don't send representatives to Congress to "represent the interest of the party." Dictatorships are born of that. That's the problem I have with most Democrats in Congress today. They put party over conscience, marching in lockstep, and then insist otherwise.

We send representatives to Congress to represent the interest of their constituents. In Wyoming, that happens to be the entire state since the representative is at-large.

“We don't send representatives to Congress to "represent the interest of the party." Dictatorships are born of that. That's the problem I have with most Democrats in Congress today. They put party over conscience, marching in lockstep, and then insist otherwise.”

Welcome to the last two hundred years of American government.

You are sadly deluded my friend, and really poorly educated if you believe that an individual voting “their conscience “
in a grandstanding lost cause, has ever been anything but the exception to the rule.

The two party system has been cemented into every state by a series of laws and rules, that rarely allow a victory by a true independent, and even then, his ability to change the course is almost non existent.

Liz fell on her sword, cause she thought she would get away with it, not for any grand principle It was a 12 year old girl having a tantrum about “orange man bad”

The Republican Party has been locked in a game of prisoner’s dilemma with the dems for most of my lifetime, unwilling to play tit for tat, and getting screwed pretty much a hundred percent of the time.

But you sent your message of conquest and forced uniformity quite clearly. ~ Ben at March 18, 2021 1:33 PM

"Message of conquest?" Who's being conquered?

Compromise is not acquiescence, Ben. There is no "forced uniformity" in it. Driving a compromise is forcing the other side to acknowledge your position and bend to it.

Reagan's argument was that compromise means realizing when you don't have the votes to win the entirety of your objectives and getting most of them instead of going down in flames with nothing. Then, go back and get the rest later, especially after you prove that your system works better than the other guy's.

Nothing about what Reagan advised says "march in lockstep with your opponents." It says a great deal about how to get things done in a democracy. As much as Republicans and Democrats hate to admit it, the guys on the other side of the aisle have a right to exist, to speak their minds, and to vote their consciences. Same for the guys on their own side of the aisle with whom they don't agree.

And, as for the idiot sitting on the Capitol steps, that was nothing more than posturing. A real mob, had there been one, would have trampled him in seconds. He was acting tough, like the bantam weight blowhard who "coulda moidered 'im" if his friends hadn't pulled him away.

And since the only reference I have to my "message of conquest" is that it contained a Reagan quote, I'm at a disadvantage to defend it. If you don't mind, would you provide a link so I can get some context and, perhaps, an understanding of what about it offended you so?

It was a 12 year old girl having a tantrum about “orange man bad” ~ Isab at March 18, 2021 2:13 PM

And, if they agree with your sentiment, the Wyoming voters are free to re-elect her or send her packing.

Personally, I think Liz jumped the gun in voting to impeach. The evidence was not in and she should have exercised better judgment than she did.

I think the first effort to impeach Trump was born of political ill-will and based on the most ludicrous interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" ever seen in US history. The phone call to the Ukrainian prime minister may not have been "perfect," but it was, in no way, an adequate basis on which to impeach a president. As for the second impeachment, charges were brought well before the evidence had been collected and analyzed.

Officer Sickman's death was hung on a thrown fire extinguisher with the wrong guy getting death threats over it -- come to find out later that there was no blunt force trauma to be found on Sickman's body. "Murder" screamed Democrats as they put the blame squarely on Trump. That he told his followers at the rally to protest at the Capitol and did not specifically tell them to storm it makes no difference to those desperate to punish him simply for being Trump.

This is why trials are not held in the heat of the moment, but later, when tempers have cooled and evidence can be evaluated objectively. The second impeachment was the action of a partisan lynch mob.

If Liz honestly believed that Trump did instigate the attack, then she had a duty to vote for impeachment. However, I'll caveat that with an acknowledgment that I believe she should have voted otherwise, if for no other reason than the haste with which the charges were brought.

And if her hasty vote is why the party is censuring her, then good for them. However, I believe that the censure of Cheney is a pro-Trump crowd slapping her hand for a lack of blind loyalty to a party leader; and that is as dangerously partisan as the rush to impeachment.

YMMV

"And since the only reference I have to my "message of conquest" is that it contained a Reagan quote, I'm at a disadvantage to defend it. If you don't mind, would you provide a link so I can get some context and, perhaps, an understanding of what about it offended you so?" ~Conan

I can't put my hand on it right now. It didn't seem like something I needed to keep around. As I recall you just had the Reagan quote. And Crid joined in right after. As I've said the message you sent to me did appear to be unintentional. But that is irrelevant. Context matter.

Al Green being outside was in zero danger. He had an army and a barbed wire fence to keep anyone he didn't want away from him. No a real mob couldn't have trampled him. They couldn't get within 100 feet of him. Hence his message became inverted from one of bravery and courage to incompetence and cowardice.

As I recall your message like Al Green had the same problem with surrounding context. On it's own it would mean what you wanted. But time, place, and occasion matter. You had Crid chiming in with full agreement right after you. Without you saying 'Hey Crid you have to compromise too.' or otherwise refocusing back on what you intended your message got inverted. I get that Crid is one of your people and you don't think too hard on what he does. But you had a situation where you called for unspecified compromise and then a guy who refuses to compromise one bit chiming in saying 'Yeah! You guys need to compromise!' I get you aren't in charge of Crid. Heaven forbid. But especially given the Liz Cheney stuff happening at the time your message was perverted from 'We all need to work together' to 'You guys need to work for me'.

For what it's worth I'm not offended. I truly think your unintended message is a more honest one. I get that you are a Jonah Goldberg and Mitch McConnell kind of guy. You've long made clear your wishes that NeverTrumpers would come back in and take over the Republican Party again. I am just pointing out that when you treat your allies as enemies they may not be allies anymore. After purging all the people who came in with Trump don't be surprised when the voters who came in with Trump don't show up.

"However, I believe that the censure of Cheney is a pro-Trump crowd slapping her hand for a lack of blind loyalty to a party leader" ~Conan

There we disagree. I think they are censuring her for gross incompetence and a refusal to represent her constituents.

Either way that is for Wyoming to deal with.

Either way that is for Wyoming to deal with.

Ben at March 18, 2021 3:25 PM

We will. Either in 22 or 24. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Dems seem smart enough, with rare exception, not to do that. But they don’t call republicans the stupid party for nothing.

Senator "Feathers Not Dots" Warren has announced that filibustering is racist.

> lower taxes, fewer regulations,
> immigration control, fewer foreign
> military interventions, etc.

How'd that stuff work out, by the way?

Did DT spend more money than BO?

Regulation broadly diminished?

Immigration? (Kidding!)

And end to the dripdrip of drone killings, etc?




> Who stood up and echoed your call
> for compromise? Crid.

WTF? Five mentions outta nowhere. Without me, you're lost… I'm the wind in your sail, the spring in your step, the lilt in your song.

> And Crid joined in right after.

Do you have a link by which the specifics of your woundedness can be reviewed in context, or this the usual artisanal butthurt? Looking for a little homework from you here, Pilgrim, rather than vague, wokey, teenage resentment. After all—

> Context matter. [sic]

Yeah, Congrats Crid. You corupted your teammate's message.

Just to be clear, how does Uncle Cridmo feel about joining up with team Trump?

No link or specifics?

Name your demands. Put your limits. I'm asking Uncle Cridmo. Last I knew you weren't a link.

Well, it's been half a day and Crid has posted elsewhere. Clearly he can't think of any easy areas of common ground with Trump voters.

This is what I was talking about Conan. You call for compromise and I understand you are asking people to give you what you want and offer nothing in return. For pretty much my entire life that is what such calls for compromise mean. You've complained about Trump's lack of political capital and an unwillingness to build it. What you are really complaining about is how all of your political capital went up in smoke with nothing to show for it.

The term political capitol is a very accurate one. You are talking about money. And just like dollars and pounds political capitol has no intrinsic value. It is only a promise the other person will get paid at a later date. And that is the problem. No one believes you will pay up. Your political credit is shot. You aren't good for the debts. Instead you are stuck with the barter system. Payment at time of service in real goods. Which sucks. I get that. But without trust that is the system you are stuck in.

Ben, your reply was impenetrably foggy… I have no idea what your grievance is. I asked for a link to the specific thing you're upset about… No reply.

Are we about done here?

Apologies Crid. I assumed you were literate. I will simplify things for you.

Conan wants to find common ground between NeverTrumpers and Trumpanzies. As such your views are pertinent. Hence why you were mentioned. The question is what does Crid think such common ground looks like? Unless there is a link to Uncle Cridmo no link is applicable. Also no one was upset.

For six years you've been picking fights by 'simplifying' rather than citing & quoting in good faith.

The source of your sorrow today isn't clear… But knock yourself out, it's the weekend.

There is nothing to cite. There is nothing to quote. It was a simple question, Crid. One you make clear that you can't answer. From that it is clear you don't see any common ground with Trump supporters. It would just be nice if you could communicate more effectively. But such is life.

And now we are done here. I'll put you back on ignore. Enjoy your weekend.

> There is nothing to cite. There
> is nothing to quote.

You call for compromise and I understand you are asking people to give you what you want and offer nothing in return. ~ Ben at March 19, 2021 10:11 AM

Then you misunderstand. You mistake "compromise" for "surrender."

Your tribe isn't willing to compromise on anything right now, Conan. Hence your call for compromise is dishonest. I get that you don't believe that. But that is the reality the rest of us see.

As I said that is why your 'center' is so lonely. Your tribe has driven the rest of us away. As I said above McConnell's purge was tactically quite sound. He accomplished most of his goals. But it was very strategically flawed. He didn't just drive out pro-Trump politicians but also the voters backing them. In doing so McConnell may have destroyed the Republican party.

But go ahead and decide Ben is crazy and doesn't know what he is talking about. I'm cool with that too. Whatever makes you happy.

Conan, are you unaware that McConnell has indicated he is going to primary every single pro-Trump politician in 2022? All the way down to state legislatures.

As I said, context matters.

Here your guy is trying to primary anyone who isn't a NeverTrumper while at the same time you are concerned that 'Trump Loyalists' are going after one of your guys. In the middle of that you call for compromise.

What kind of compromise works there? You only get rid of half of us next year and wait to get rid of the rest of us in 2024?

I don't believe you are that stupid. That careless maybe. It happens to us all afterall. But I have too much respect for your intelligence.

So as I said before, epic message fail.

But go ahead and decide Ben is crazy and doesn't know what he is talking about. I'm cool with that too. Whatever makes you happy. ~ Ben at March 21, 2021 5:26 AM

I don't think "Ben is crazy." And I don't think the Republicans should drive the Trump loyalists out of the party. There is a reason he connected so well with the working classes and with disaffected voters. Republicans need to understand that connection and that disaffection.

Democrats should be paying attention to those things as well and attempting to reconnect with working class voters; that is, beyond kowtowing to the Bernie Bros and the fanatical Left.

However, blind loyalty to any politician, Trump included should be discouraged and rebuked. Never be blindly loyal to any politician.

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge, even where there is no river." ~ Nikita Khrushchev

"However, blind loyalty to any politician, Trump included should be discouraged and rebuked. Never be blindly loyal to any politician." ~Conan

Agreed. And blind hatred too. In a democracy politicians are employees. If they aren't providing what you want then fire them and find another one.