March 3: Trump’s GOP Has No Agenda Other Than Purges and Voter Suppression
After watching Donald Trump’s wildly applauded address to this year’s CPAC conference, I wrote an assessment at New York:
In his rapturously received 88-minute address to the 2021 CPAC conference on Sunday, former president Donald Trump didn’t give his listeners what so many of them wanted: a pledge to run for president again in 2024 (though he teased the crowd with his obvious availability). But he vented his outsized spleen fully, and left no doubt that the future of Trumpism will be its past, revived and vindicated.
Much of the speech was rehashed from the brag sessions of the 2020 campaign, treating his administration as one long parade of unprecedented triumphs on every single front. Accordingly, Joe Biden’s extremely brief presidency was condemned as the worst in history already thanks to the 46th president’s reversal of the policies of the 45th (especially on immigration policy), which were one long parade of unprecedented triumphs on every single front. Viewers were left with the distinct impression that a near-utopian future for the country would be as simple as the replacement of Biden with — well, if not Trump — then someone with exactly the same policies and sterling leadership qualities.
In tune with the reactionary atmosphere of this and every other Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump suggested that resistance to the plans of the hated opposition was enough of an agenda. Twice he asserted that Democratic governance would put the country on a short road to full-fledged communism. But it was remarkable how little he bothered to outline any ideas for the future other than the restoration of the recent past.
The one exception was his bloody-shirt demands for “election integrity” legislation in every state, which included a universal revocation of no-excuse absentee balloting (and all in-person early voting, since he called for a “single election day”) and universal voter ID requirements. It’s an audacious proposal, considering that 13 states (including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin) carried by Biden already have voter ID requirements, and fully 34 (including 12 states carried by Trump) had no-excuse voting by mail before the COVID-19 pandemic and the marginal liberalization of deadlines and procedures that Trump blames for his defeat.
Apparently Trump’s “landslide” victory required tighter voting rules than the country has had for many years. It’s unlikely a return to the spirit of the days of poll taxes and literacy tests is going to pass muster with federal and state courts (Trump, of course, blasted the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court that included three of his nominees, for lacking the “courage” to overturn Biden’s victory). But Republican subscription to this terrible assault on voting rights is another way that GOP elected officials can bend the knee to Trump.
Other than voter suppression, the future of Trumpism as outlined by its founder seemed to revolve around vengeance against RINOs, the ancient conservative epithet that now seems to be defined strictly by a lack of loyalty to Donald Trump. To feral roars from the crowd, he named every single congressional Republican who voted for his impeachment or conviction, suggesting that all must go before the GOP would be able to match the communist-bent Democrats in viciousness and self-discipline.
It appears, then, that Trump has determined to ensure that Republicans go into 2022 and 2024 as a political force dedicated to the restoration of his legacy with or without his personal leadership. For the most part, the dominant ideological movement in the party and the hallowed conservative movement is his. Indeed, one of the more unmistakeable phenomena of CPAC 2021 is the extent to which Republican activists now treat the conservative and MAGA movements as identical. And if he chooses to keep control of both movements, who can challenge him? The obvious successor to Trumpism is ever more Trumpism, and the obvious successor to Trump is still Trump.
I know both campaigns are dirty and spin whatever they do- but my intent was not to bash liberals; solely the author, a Democrat. My post was solely to show that her comment was not hypocritical and to show there are multiple sides to this argument. Let us both agree that US politics could use a Change that neither politician elected can truly bring.
“Why do Democrats waste their time trying to get an edge on every single thing that comes out of an opponent’s mouth?”
You have to be kidding? Do you not pay attention to the McCain campaign? They have been the masters at out of context comments, not to mention out of context votes, passed bills, etc… Lipstick on a pig? Whaaa waaa waaa, Disrespectful! Excessive use of powers as a governor? Boo hoo hoo, Sexists!
Even though I’m for state rights neither party seems to support that. Republicans can’t pick and choose which rights they get to choose.
Why do Democrats waste their time trying to get an edge on every single thing that comes out of an opponent’s mouth? This is a perfectly legitimate argument by Palin. I can see there IS an inherent right to privacy. The government has no right spying on what we do with our lives, what we watch, where we get or information from, etc.
HOWEVER, this doesn’t go against the belief that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed. The topic has about 50% of Americans supporting it as a “mother’s choice” and the other 50% are for saving an unborn baby! Murdering would obviously NOT be protected under the Constitution. It is a giant opinion: religion vs. science, property, life & death, etc. It’s a bundle of opinions that cross many boundaries with many pros and cons depending on how you look at it (god forbid you look with a perspective not of a staunch democrat).
Finally, HOW DARE SHE let the PEOPLE of the STATE decide on a LAW! OUTLANDISH… Oh, wait. THAT IS WHAT DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE! Much like the Constitution, this topic is not clear cut: it doesn’t just fall into the privacy clause. I think Palin handled herself quite well: She passed the judgment to the states. The government should allow privacy and butt out of a decision that states should make.
PS. Ed you are Male, if I am (hopefully) correct. You will have no baby so I suggest you let the women deal with this topic because it is far above you.