From Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal:
There is something increasingly unappeasable in the left. … We can’t just have court-ordered legalized abortion across the land, we have to have it up to the point of birth, and taxpayers have to pay for it. It’s not enough to win same-sex marriage, you’ve got to personally approve of it and if you publicly resist you’ll be ruined. It’s not enough that we have publicly funded contraceptives, the nuns have to provide them. …
If progressives were wise they would step back, accept their victories, take a breath and turn to the idea of solidifying gains…. Don’t make them bake the cake. Don’t make them accept the progressive replacement for Scalia. Leave the nuns alone.
Progressives have no idea how fragile it all is. That’s why they feel free to be unappeasable. … They think America has endless give. But America is composed of humans, and they do not have endless give.
Isn’t that what we’re seeing this year in the political realm? That they don’t have endless give? And we’ll be seeing more of it.
It’s a good summation of the present predicament.
Obviously, economic malaise—a decade of slow or no real economic growth—is a driving factor in the angry dissatisfaction among working and middle class voters, fueling the hysteria over immigrants taking American jobs that Trump and others have so effectively exploited. But the cultural factors Noonan points to are real and shouldn’t be dismissed.
More. Also in the WSJ, Gerald F. Seib writes: “Some of these [Trump] voters appear new to the GOP, but many have been bouncing around in the party, lured in over the years by their differences with Democrats on cultural issues. … The voters Mr. Trump has pulled together in winning New Hampshire and South Carolina and coming in second in Iowa is a coalition of the economically and culturally alienated….”
Along similar lines, Brendan O’Neill writes in the U.K.’s The Spectator: “America’s new elites, fancying themselves superior to the rural, the old, the religiously inclined and the rest, have increasingly turned politics into something that is done to people, for their own good, rather than by people according to their moral outlook. And then they wonder why people go looking for something else, something less sneering.”
Rich Tafel tells Harvard Divinity School: “The biggest issues for evangelical voters are economic. … Beyond economic issues, they have a deep-seated fear they are losing their religious liberty and country. … Add to that secular activists who are using their power to force issues on evangelicals, and it makes that narrative very real. Religious liberty is the phrase you are going to hear more of. There will be strong pushback on some social issues, like gay marriage, because of the overreach of the secular left.”
Furthermore. From Tom Nichols at The Daily Beast, How the P.C. Police Propelled Donald Trump:
Gay marriage is a good example. Liberals wanted gay marriage to win in the Supreme Court, and it did. Leftists wanted more: to silence their opponents even after those opponents completely lost on the issue. Ugly language that good liberals would normally deplore emerged not in the wake of defeat, but of victory: actor and gay activist George Takei, for example, actually called Justice Clarence Thomas a “clown in blackface” and said Thomas had “abdicated” his status as an African American. That’s heavy stuff, and it would likely scan better written in Chinese on a paper dunce cap. …
I will vote for a third candidate out of protest—even if it means accepting what I consider the ghastly prospect of a Clinton 45 administration. But I understand the fear of being silenced that’s prompting otherwise decent people to make common cause with racists and modern Know-Nothings, and I blame the American left for creating that fear. …
American liberals, complacently turning away from the excesses of the left and eviscerating their own moderate wing, have damaged the two-party system to the point that an unhinged billionaire demagogue is raking in support from people who are now more afraid of leftists controlling the Justice Department than they are of Putin or ISIS.
34 Comments for “Courting Backlash”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s a good summation of the present predicament.
It is utter nonsense.
posted by Houndentenor on
Hidden among all that nonsense is her real agenda…dismissing the idea that presidents can nominate justices. Yes, Obama is going to nominate someone that Noonan will consider a liberal (but who will really be a moderate). The horror. Noonan isn’t stupid so either she has lost her mind or she’s just distorting reality to distract from the crap conservatives are pushing through state legislatures all over the country.
posted by Lori Heine on
The constant pushing for more, more, more is all just a part of the game. It isn’t like the other side doesn’t do the same thing.
A rapidly-increasing number of Americans are deathly tired of both sides. I happen to be one of them. I’d be perfectly happy to let bigots refuse to bake my cake and leave the nuns alone. But like most people, I’m caught in the crossfire between two extremes that just won’t shut up and quit.
The Supreme Court/Scalia death soap opera is really too much. Enough already. Nominate somebody willing to respect the Constitution and steer a sane middle course. There are things an ideologue justice on either side would do that could wreck this country and ruin our lives.
Screw both “teams.” I hate them both. If enough Americans decide we’re done with this crap, we can shut the game down.
posted by Doug on
It’s the Right that continues fighting abortion and the LGBT community after the Supreme Court has spoken, so I don’t know what dear old Peggy is talking about. I can guarantee that any advice to the progressive side from Peggy Noonon would only benefit the right. It’s time for you to grow up and quit whining Ms. Noonon.
posted by Jorge on
“There is something increasingly unappeasable in the left. … We can’t just have court-ordered legalized abortion across the land, we have to have it up to the point of birth, and taxpayers have to pay for it.”
I realize there’s a very strong argument against taxpayer funded abortions, but people need to understand in an age of Obamacare’s tax penalties for not purchasing mandated health coverage there’s just as strong an argument for the reverse.
Abortion is health care. Planned Parenthood does abortions alongside mammograms and cervical cancer screenings and other health care services that actually have to do with planned parenthood.
You don’t like it? You probably should have defeated Obamacare when you had the chance. Oh, too bad, the other party had a supermajority and they used it. Stop complaining and elect Donald Trump or Ted Cruz already.
It’s not enough to win same-sex marriage, you’ve got to personally approve of it and if you publicly resist you’ll be ruined.
True. Think I should post one of my anti-Obergefell commentaries at work during Gay Pride Month?
It’s not enough that we have publicly funded contraceptives, the nuns have to provide them.
That’s funny, in a twisted sort of way.
Don’t make them accept the progressive replacement for Scalia.
Go **** yourself, Noonan. Houndentenor has it exactly right.
Ted Cruz is not a nice person. Nobody likes him. And he said a very offensive thing. Donald Trump has called women he doesn’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals, wants to break up illegal immigrant families, and tried to use eminent domain to bulldoze a grandmother’s home so he could build one of his casinos after four of them went bankrupt. And they have figured out a way use the political process to strikeback against lawful political decisions they do not agree with in a time when their party has almost no ability to make change themselves. They aren’t just going on the fruitless warpath against progressives. They are taking responsibility for their own conduct, throwing up a ****storm to make life miserable for others, punishing progressives with power.
posted by Houndentenor on
No federal money is used to pay for abortions.
We could make very easy compromises on much of this. I’m with Lori. I do not want to force anyone to bake me a cake. I just want the marriage licenses issued and there are still plenty of places fighting that. So how about an agreement in which the right agrees to drop it’s objection to legal same sex marriages and in exchange non-government entities do not have to have anything to do with the weddings? Of course that’s not going to happen and much of the problem lies with the endless campaign cycle. Elected officials care little about getting anything done, just about getting themselves re-elected. See the VA mess. There should be zero opposition to fixing the backlog in applications for VA benefits. So why hasn’t it happened? Because it’s better to fuck around and muck things up and then blame the other party than it is to meet and draft a bill and pass it and voila problem solved. Not everything is that easily solved but even things that 75+ of Americans want can’t get done because that would give someone else a perceived victory. They care not one iota about the country or its citizens and don’t even feel obligated to pretend to. It’s disgusting and that’s one reason that anti-establishment candidates are doing so well. You may not like the message they are bringing, but both parties should wake up because a lot of us hare mad as hell.
posted by craig123 on
No federal money is used to pay for abortions.
Even you can’t possibly believe this.
From direct federal subsidies to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, to taxpayer-subsidized Obamacare policies that cover abortion, lots of taxpayers’ money goes to terminating pregnancies for nonhealth reasons — regardless of some semantic slight of hand that no one except abortion proponents give any credence to.
posted by Jorge on
Huh. Even I believe no federal money is used to pay for abortions.
And how do I know this?
Because old Republican senators who just look like Montgomery Burns and are just as eager to get ’em haven’t said so.
posted by Houndentenor on
Do you have evidence that federal money is being used in violation of the Hyde Amendment? Please share, if you do.
posted by Jorge on
So how about an agreement in which the right agrees to drop it’s objection to legal same sex marriages and in exchange non-government entities do not have to have anything to do with the weddings?
What do you mean by “the right’s objection to legal same sex marriages”? That’s pretty broad.
I think you should allow the right to run Marco “Married a *** Hag” Rubio for president on his overturn Obergefell platform so you can crush him under the heel of your boot (or not).
You should advocate suing Kim Davis for calling into question gay marriage licenses because she scribbles asterisks on them, and letting her appeal the judge’s contempt order as based on illegal law. About half the GOP candidates favored that position.
These are contests of undecided questions that can be won and lost.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But the cultural factors aren’t easily dismissed.
Certainly not by those, like Noonan, who can exploit them for political advantage.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Noonan isn’t stupid so either she has lost her mind or she’s just distorting reality to distract from the crap conservatives are pushing through state legislatures all over the country.
Noonan is playing the “gay card” (among other “culture wars” cards) in an attempt to remind WSJ readers that Republicans are not so much obstructing the the process as building a bulwark again progressive values (“New York values”?) to save America from the homosexual agenda, the feminist agenda, the minority agenda, and so on.
Noonan is being subtle about it, of course, “warning” progressives that they are in danger of losing it all unless they back off and let conservatives appoint another Scalia, but don’t think that her audience doesn’t get the message. she’s sending.
Noonan implicitly ties anger over gays and lesbians among the Republican faithful to the Rise of Trump. It is nonsense.
Trump is the least anti-equality of the three standing Republican candidates, and is certainly not pushing the “overturn Obergefell” agenda adopted by Cruz and Rubio, doubled-down by the two of them at every opportunity.
In South Carolina exit polls, Trump did better than either of the others in every Republican demographic except “very conservative” voters (carried by Cruz) and urban dwellers (carried by Rubio). Specifically, he did better than either of the others among self-identified white born-agains and evangelicals, the demographic most likely to support a strong anti-equality candidate like Cruz or Rubio.
The real nonsense, though, is that Noonan “warns” progressives that all that gays and lesbians have gained during the last decade will be revoked unless progressives stand back and let Republicans appoint a Scalia-clone Justice who would revoke all that gays and lesbians have gained in the last decade. That is double-think worthy of George Orwell.
Stephen initially gushed over Noonan’s analysis (“It’s a good summation of the present predicament.“) but later seems to have come to his senses, adding an unannounced update-qualitfier (“Obviously, economic malaise—a decade of slow or no real economic growth—is a driving factor in the angry dissatisfaction working and middle class voters. But the cultural factors aren’t easily dismissed.“) a day after the initial post. Stephen, it seems, can recognize idiocy when it is pointed out to him.
I don’t know what factors combine to fuel the Rise of Trump, or in what combination, but I can’t see any evidence that anger at Obergefell or fear of jack-booted gays and lesbian thugs trampling the rights of Christians is much of a factor.
And, to be blunt about it, as much as I don’t want to see Trump become President for a host of reasons, he’s the least likely of the three standing serious candidates to make reversing what we have gained a priority. In fact, while he’s paid lip service to the “no nominee” nonsense, he’s not pushing that, either. “New York values” and all that.
But the “gay card”? You can bet that it is going to be played over and over again in the coming election. That sucks. We’ve been cannon fodder for Republicans long enough.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen I: “Obviously, economic malaise—a decade of slow or no real economic growth—is a driving factor in the angry dissatisfaction working and middle class voters. But the cultural factors aren’t easily dismissed.“
Stephen II: Obviously, economic malaise—a decade of slow or no real economic growth—is a driving factor in the angry dissatisfaction among working and middle class voters, fueling the hysteria over immigrants taking American jobs that Trump and others have so effectively exploited. But the cultural factors Noonan points to are real and shouldn’t be dismissed.
I see you’ve changed the ending paragraph yet again, Stephen.
You don’t seem to have any more of a clue than the rest of the Republican “establishment” about what is driving the Rise of Trump. I’m not sure that anyone does, really, and I don’t, but I would point out that the South Carolina exit polls reflect the New Hampshire exit polls, with Trump running strongly across almost all Republican demographics.
CNN exit polls have an interesting question for Republican primary voters — “Do you feel that you have been betrayed by the Republican Party?”
In New Hampshire, just under 50% of Republican voters answered “Yes”, and in South Carolina, 53% answered “Yes”. In both cases, the “feel betrayed” vote went to Trump and Cruz in disproportionate numbers (in South Carolina, Trump – 41%, Cruz – 32%, Bush/Rubio – 8%, and Kasich 3%). I don’t know what that suggests, other than that a lot of Republican voters don’t think much of the “establishment”, but it is food for thought.
You might just want to sit quiet on the simplistic answers for a while, and await clarification as the nomination process goes forward. I think that we’ll have a better picture after the March 1 and March 5 primaries.
On the “Noonan Analysis”, I suspect you are beating a dead horse. I can understand why you and others are doing so, I think, but a dead horse don’t trot.
posted by JohnInCA on
“It’s a good summation of the present predicament.”
A pack of lies is a “good summation” in Miller’s eyes? That’s (not very) interesting.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But the cultural factors Noonan points to are real and shouldn’t be dismissed.
Stephen, since you seem to be claiming that LGBT overreach is a material factor in fueling the Rise of Trump, how about providing some evidence of that, like polling data from likely Trump voters or exit polling data from actual Trump voters. I’ve looked around a bit today, and can’t find anything to support the Noonan thesis.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
If the political right was willing to accep equal means equal, some good faith compromises could be developed. People here have mentioned a few here.
Yet, what we are seeing is outrage without understanding. Wild conspiracy theories instead of sound public policy.
posted by Wilberforce on
I can think of a factor that might explain Trump. It could be that the republican base are finally getting tired of the incompetence of their leaders, from Reagan’s borrow and spend to W’s many blunders. But rather than take responsibility for any of it, as no republican would ever do, they support an outsider, or someone they think is one.
Just a theory.
posted by Houndentenor on
I actually know some Trump supporters. Trump says out loud what I’ve head them say since I was a child. Why is this surprising to anyone? Oh right, because no one in the media or either party’s leadership ever bothers to talk to frustrated working class and lower middle class men. Ever. Oh they pander to them, but when someone finally was smart enough to tap into that openly, they are shocked? What morons.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I actually know some Trump supporters. Trump says out loud what I’ve head them say since I was a child. Why is this surprising to anyone?
If the Republicans bothered to look at the exit polls, the Republicans might notice that Trump has a 70-point lead over all other Republican candidates in the “Tells it like it is …” category — Trump 78%, Cruz 8%, Rubio 3%, the others as low as Rubio. Trump is speaking to the base in a way that none of the others do or are capable of doing.
Oh right, because no one in the media or either party’s leadership ever bothers to talk to frustrated working class and lower middle class men. Ever. Oh they pander to them, but when someone finally was smart enough to tap into that openly, they are shocked? What morons.
Yup. And notice that Trump is talking about what concerns the Republican base, not what the Republican elites think that the Republican base should be concerned about. Trump is the antithesis of the “Priebus Autopsy”.
The Republican “establishment” should listen to a half dozen of his rallies and try to understand the message he is sending, as I have done.
Trump talks about the basics — Americans are being screwed by trade deals, Americans are being screwed by the global economy, Americans are being screwed by illegals from Mexico, Americans are being screwed by China, American are being screwed by politicians, the Republican establishment is inept, and on and on.
On the other hand, Trump barely mentions the issues that the Republican “establishment” think that the base is or should be concerned about. He says that he is not going to get rid of Social Security or Medicare. He says that he is not going to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn’t mention Obergefell or the so-called “religious freedom” laws, except in passing. He supports the Equality Act. He doesn’t parrot Republican orthodoxy about George Bush or the Iraq war.
The Republican “establishment” has now elected, I guess, to put all their eggs in Rubio’s basket, if the number of endorsements that Rubio picked up since Saturday, and the increasing calls for Kasich to get out of the way, are any indications. I don’t know if the money will follow (Rubio will need a quick influx of $50-75 million if he is going to take on Trump in the March 1 and March 15 primaries), and I don’t know if Rubio has the skill set to take on Trump.
So I don’t want to predict how that is going to turn out — I suspect that it won’t turn out the way the Republican “establishment” wants it to turn out — but I notice that Rubio has the lowest “Tells is like it is …” score among all of the Republican candidates ranked in the South Carolina exit polling referenced above, and that is not a good sign for Rubio. It looks like Republican voters think that Rubio is not tough, not real.
Whatever happens, I think that we’ll have a good feel about what is going on after the March 1 and March 5 primaries.
posted by TOM JEFFERSONN 3RD on
Sometimes, not always mind you, reading posts by Stephen sort of reminds me of a character from Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
In the series the character named, Anya has this outrageous fear and hatred of bunnies. In one episode she gets to elaborate on why she is so anti-bunny (through a song and dance number) and this elaboration often reminds me of Stephen’s commentary.
If you a search for the Buffy The Vampire Slayer episode “Once More With Feeling, you can probably listen to/watch the bit I am talking about (song is “I Got A Theory”).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. Also in the WSJ, Gerald F. Seib writes … Along similar lines, Brendan O’Neill writes in the U.K.’s The Spectator …
And more to come, no doubt, with “Futhermore”, “More More”, “More Furthermore”, and “Further More Furthermore” as you find more opinion pieces in the “libertarian” press that saw the saw you saw.
But, Stephen, endless repetition doesn’t make an unsupported statement more true or less true.
Right now, the talking head yammering about Trump is mostly projection, with the assorted camps in the Republican coalition each opining that the Rise of Trump is attributable to the party’s failure to advance their particular agenda within the party.
We don’t have much data yet from exit polls, but what data we do have, quite limited, suggests that the Rise of Trump defies traditional, identity-group-based politics on the right.
Trump has clearly tapped into something, something that cuts across almost all of the Republican demographics.
When we have a reasonable number of data points, the nature of forces driving the Rise of Trump might become clearer. And it may be that resentment about gays and lesbians is a contributing factor, just as it may be that resentment about minorities is a contributing factor, just as it may be that fear about terrorism is a contributing factor, just as it may be that …
Or not. We don’t yet know enough, not even close.
Consider this: Even if resentment about gays and lesbians is the single most important factor (albeit almost entirely hidden from view, since Trump barely mentions gays and lesbians, and when he does, often takes positions at odds with Republican orthodoxy) , what does that change? What difference does it make?
Trump has not made deconstructing Obergefell a priority, while the non-Trump alternatives, Cruz and Rubio, have. The worst that happens is that Trump abandons his “New York Values” and becomes as determined to roll back our gains as Cruz and Rubio.
posted by Houndentenor on
Are we to take the Tafel quote as an admission from Stephen that the right isn’t in fact going to give up on the gay marriage fight? She I be nice or should I do my “I told you so” dance now? Of course it’s the fault of the left because nothing in Stephen’s world is ever the fault of conservatives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
From the NYT this evening:
I guess that Noonan’s warnings about a backlash if the President appoints a nominee unacceptable to Noonan is, as lawyers would put it, a moot point. Too bad. Word is that the President is planning to nominate Matt Staver. Snort.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is a new low for the GOP. The aren’t even going to pretend that the nominee is unqualified or unacceptable. They don’t even know who the nominee is! What a disgrace.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A new low? The Republicans have been refusing to vote numerous judicial nominations up or down for years, despite Chief Justice Roberts’ pleas that the court system is no longer functioning properly because the a shortage of judges.
Refusing to act on judicial nominations is Republican standard operating procedure, although the Supreme Court vacancy is noteworthy because it is the Supreme Court and Republican are being so open about it.
Rubio is criticized because he seldom shows up to do any work in the Senate, but I’d probably do the same thing if I were in his shoes. Why show up when all the leadership is going to allow you to do is twiddle your thumbs?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The aren’t even going to pretend that the nominee is unqualified or unacceptable. They don’t even know who the nominee is! What a disgrace.
Maybe they are just pointing out that the President has gotten uppity as of late.
posted by Jorge on
“The biggest issues for evangelical voters are economic. … Beyond economic issues, they have a deep-seated fear they are losing their religious liberty and country. … Add to that secular activists who are using their power to force issues on evangelicals, and it makes that narrative very real. Religious liberty is the phrase you are going to hear more of. There will be strong pushback on some social issues, like gay marriage, because of the overreach of the secular left.”
Amazing.
Evangelicals want the person least likely to start a fight on social issues because he’s the most likely to win a fight. Reasonable if the probabilities fall right.
I don’t know what factors combine to fuel the Rise of Trump, or in what combination, but I can’t see any evidence that anger at Obergefell or fear of jack-booted gays and lesbian thugs trampling the rights of Christians is much of a factor.
Another way of putting it is that I think there are similarities between the appeal of Donald Trump and (Mike Huckabee) that belie their differences in character and ideology. The evidence is in the slight increase to Trump’s support since the other also-rans plummetted, and the lack of evidence of any repudiation of that sentiment in the primary. That section of the vote isn’t all going to Carson and Cruz. Trump will probably be “good enough.”
I believe the anti-gay rights backlash will have a noticeable impact on the eventual nominee. Not as big an ideological impact that the foreign policy hawks had on the race, but it will be there.
“Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.”
Oh goodie. Now I can write my bleed-through-the-nose check (because my credit card limit isn’t high enough) to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (or whatever it’s called).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a (probably unnecessary at this point) footnote to this thread, the entrance/exit polls from Nevada are consistent with those of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Looking at CNN’s entrance poll as an example of the pattern: Trump won almost all Republican demographics, most by a significant margin. The only three demographics where he was bested were “Voters 17-29” (Rubio 37%), “Can Win in November” (Rubio 50%), and “Shares My Values” (Cruz 42%*).
As is the case with the exit polling in New Hampshire and South Carolina, I see no evidence at all that a backlash against gays and lesbians was a material factor in Trump’s success.
A caveat: We are early in the primary process, and we do not yet (in my view) have sufficient data to understand the Rise of Trump except in broad terms.
*it isn’t clear whether the “values voters” identified with Cruz’s chronic lying and low-handed tactics or Cruz’s shirtsleeve piety. Given the history of the conservative Christian campaign against marriage equality, I’d guess both in equal measure.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I read an interesting article (can’t seem to find it at the moment) that talked about Trump supporters being “authoritarian” in nature — not authoritarian as dictator, but easily driven by fear towards what they perceive as a “strong” personality… which explains why Trump is winning in the evangelical Christian wings: people who strongly believe that their religion is the only “true one”, that tend to lean towards apocalyptic thinking and who take it as “gospel” that anyone who doesn’t believe or act as they do is a heretic and unworthy of any respect unless they repent and convert.
This fits in well with the Trump narrative: I’m a winner. Everyone else is a loser. My supporters are backing a winner. QED.
I think there’s also a bit of self-satisfaction that Trump has given them license to break free of the growing social constraints that have, heretofore, not allowed them to verbally bash gays, immigrants, blacks, Jews, etc… how long the rest of the country is willing to let this vulgarity continue is anyone’s guess, but as long as Stephen keeps slinging the anti-PC and religious liberty crap, it may be quite a while.
[When Glen Beck calls your supporters “Brown Shirts”…]
posted by Jorge on
The one I found was an opinion piece in the Washington Post. I’m sure the study is true, and your discussion is about 10x more intelligent than that article’s.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I read an interesting article (can’t seem to find it at the moment) that talked about Trump supporters being “authoritarian” in nature
There are a bunch of them out there, including this article in the HuffPost.
In the sense of “authoritarian” used in the article, and others like it (which is quite different from the way that Stephen and “libertarians” use the term), you might be on to something about the reason why Evangelical and Born-Again voters don’t seem to be bothered by Trump’s personal life.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Correction: The linked article was in Politico. HuffPost, among others, ran similar articles.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
If Trump does not get what he wants, he could very well run in the general election as a third party candidate.
I hear that he once flirted with the running for president under the Reform Party column.
I think that at the time, Patrick Buchan ended up being the Reform Party presidential candidate…….
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Its funny to see British conservatives try and break bread with American political right.
The English have lived in a tidy welfare state, NHS and the like. The British Tories pushed for gay civil rights/ marriage, have not pushed for substainilty different abortion laws.