The Old Right Opposed Tariffs

[CCTelander]

Aldritch was following the party line, the conservative party line, that was just his cover.
He also probably wanted to set up tariffs as the scapegoat when the coming fed destroyed the economy.

Cherry picking him as one person does nothing to change that it was progressives who wanted free trade in order to destroy the native patriotic rich and the middle class to benefit the rootless cosmopolitan international class and bring on globalism.

Your first two sentences are pure speculation with absolutely no factual data to support them.

Your last comment is just pure bullshit. But you already know that.

 

[TheTexan]

Economic isolationism—tariffs, quotas, embargoes, and general governmental interference with international trade—is an “irritant that can well lead to war,” he wrote. “To build a trade wall around a country is to invite reprisals,” and generates “misunderstanding and mistrust.” To Chodorov, “Free trade is natural, protectionism is political.”

Basically what he's saying above is that people consider countries that just want to be left alone, a dangerous threat, for the sake of wanting to be left alone.

I tend to agree that is how the world thinks, but it's not an opinion that someone should be proud of sharing. There is nothing wrong, or aggressive, about just wanting to be left alone, whether you are a nation, or an individual.

Isolation is not a bad thing, or a good thing, by itself. It is a country's choice and it should be respected, and not feared or mistrusted.

The above author's symptom is indicative of a much greater global pressure to integrate, and that is most certainly a bad thing. This global pressure is always headed one way and its towards a globalist one world government.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Your first two sentences are pure speculation with absolutely no factual data to support them.

Your last comment is just pure bull$#@!. But you already know that.

Go ahead, throw stones while on the same side as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.
I'll stand with Taft, the real conservatives, and the Founding Fathers.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Basically what he's saying above is that people consider countries that just want to be left alone, a dangerous threat, for the sake of wanting to be left alone.

I tend to agree that is how the world thinks, but it's not an opinion that someone should be proud of sharing. There is nothing wrong, or aggressive, about just wanting to be left alone, whether you are a nation, or an individual.

Isolation is not a bad thing, or a good thing, by itself. It is a country's choice and it should be respected, and not feared or mistrusted.

The above author's symptom is indicative of a much greater global pressure to integrate, and that is most certainly a bad thing. This global pressure is always headed one way and its towards a globalist one world government.

It's inversion of the truth.
As soon as you become interdependent (and the prophets of free trade all agree that will happen and claim it's a good thing) you have "interests" in foreign countries all over the globe that you have to "defend" for your own survival.
If you aren't the interventionist "defending national interest" all over the globe your only other choice is to be dependent on and a client state of the place or places you depend on, like China.

 

[TheTexan]

Not to mention the fact that isolationist societies throughout history have almost always been backward, stagnant societies that usually suffered under some form of brutal, feudal dictatorships. It’s only been after they’ve abandoned their foolish isolationism that they were able to move in the direction of greater freedom and prosperity, although there are certainly no guarantees that the will/would.

The above instant knee-jerk reaction is the kind of emotional response that I am referring to in post #42.

It is a triggered, emotional, and predictable response that was manufactured by the globalists to demonize isolationism, sovereignty, and secession.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about a society, or an individual, wanting to be left alone.

 

[TheTexan]

It's inversion of the truth.
As soon as you become interdependent (and the prophets of free trade all agree that will happen and claim it's a good thing) you have "interests" in foreign countries all over the globe that you have to "defend" for your own survival.
If you aren't the interventionist "defending national interest" all over the globe your only other choice is to be dependent on and a client state of the place or places you depend on, like China.

Quite right. What's interesting about it, is that it seems to me pretty self evident that free trade creates these dependencies (or "interests"). A dependency, by definition, has risks associated with it.

Which should be pretty obvious and yet some here seem extremely resistant to even acknowledging it. It's one thing to acknowledge it and say there are reasonable counter-arguments (for which there are), but its yet another thing entirely to go along pretending like these dependencies and risks don't even exist, which is what most of the free-traders here seem to do.

Same thing about the direction we're headed towards a one world government. I believe it was Collins who called it a "myth". Full global economic integration is so obviously a huge step closer to global political unification, that the denial of how it brings us closer to globalism would be laughable if not so sad.

I know the people on this board are capable of critical thinking, or they wouldn't be here, but it's just shocking to me how little of their critical thinking applies to the subject of free trade - and more broadly, the retention of culture and identity in general.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Quite right. What's interesting about it, is that it seems to me pretty self evident that free trade creates these dependencies (or "interests"). A dependency, by definition, has risks associated with it.

Which should be pretty obvious and yet some here seem extremely resistant to even acknowledging it. It's one thing to acknowledge it and say there are reasonable counter-arguments (for which there are), but its yet another thing entirely to go along pretending like these dependencies and risks don't even exist, which is what most of the free-traders here seem to do.

Same thing about the direction we're headed towards a one world government. I believe it was Collins who called it a "myth". Full global economic integration is so obviously a huge step closer to global political unification, that the denial of how it brings us closer to globalism would be laughable if not so sad.

I know the people on this board are capable of critical thinking, or they wouldn't be here, but it's just shocking to me how little of their critical thinking applies to the subject of free trade - and more broadly, the retention of culture and identity in general.

The Common Market created the EU, it would not have been possible without it.

Free Traders think in terms of instant gratification of their wallets and that precludes thinking about anything else, even long term prosperity and wealth.

 

[CCTelander]

Go ahead, throw stones while on the same side as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.
I'll stand with Taft, the real conservatives, and the Founding Fathers.

When all else fails, resort to an appeal to authority.

Seems to me I’ve seen you yourself denounce that quite a few times.

Curious.

 

[Swordsmyth]

When all else fails, resort to an appeal to authority.

Seems to me I’ve seen you yourself denounce that quite a few times.

Curious.

I simply responded in kind, this entire thread is premised on an appeal to authority, and you are the one who brought Aldritch into it as if his happening to be on one side of the bill was a devastating damnation of it.
If you want to play that game then please go ahead and play on the same team as Wilson.

 

[acptulsa]

Aldritch was following the party line...

I know you came here to make excuses for a RINO but why this RINO? He doesn't need you to make excuses for him, he's dead.

Cherry picking him as one person does nothing...

Then why did you personally cherrypick him?

 

[Swordsmyth]

I know you came here to make excuses for a RINO but why this RINO? He doesn't need you to make excuses for him, he's dead.



Then why did you personally cherrypick him?

You just failed reading comprehension, I was damning Aldritch as insincere in supporting tariffs and doing so for ulterior motives.

And I didn't cherry pick him, I posted a quote about all the old conservatives being in favor of tariffs while progressives were against them and he happened to be one of the people mentioned.
The cherry pickers jumped in and tried to use him as a distraction from the rest of what I posted.

But you just go ahead and take the side of Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, it suits you.

 

[Invisible Man]

"Old" right.
Very modern figures who had been indoctrinated in the free trade cult.

Old Right is an early-to-mid-20th century movement.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Old Right is an early-to-mid-20th century movement.

Bunk.

But even with that definition you fail, as the history I posted proves.
It was left leaning progressives who wanted free trade and opposed tariffs.

 

[Invisible Man]

Bunk.

But even with that definition you fail, as the history I posted proves.
It was left leaning progressives who wanted free trade and opposed tariffs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)

So a deceptive made up term meant to lend an air of antiquity to a modern group.

And you still fail, because the conservative leadership of the era wanted tariffs, it was progressives who were moving left who opposed tariffs along with the leftist Democrats.

 

[Invisible Man]

So a deceptive made up term meant to lend an air of antiquity to a modern group.

And you still fail, because the conservative leadership of the era wanted tariffs, it was progressives who were moving left who opposed tariffs along with the leftist Democrats.

Regardless what you think of the term, it's an existing term that has a meaning, and the OP used it in its normal way. It's also a term that is closely related to the movement this whole website is based on, and that has historically been used here a lot without anybody having a problem with it.

You apparently didn't know what the Old Right was, and disputed the OP on the basis of that misunderstanding on your part.

And now you want to complain about the existence of the term itself.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Regardless what you think of the term, it's an existing term that has a meaning, and the OP used it in its normal way. It's also a term that is closely related to the movement this whole website is based on, and that has historically been used here a lot without anybody having a problem with it.

You apparently didn't know what the Old Right was, and disputed the OP on the basis of that misunderstanding on your part.

And now you want to complain about the existence of the term itself.

I disputed it based on the deliberate deception involved, and proceeded to prove that it wasn't even accurate by the deceptive definition.
The real right in the time period was pro-tariff, the progressives were anti-tariff.

And I will most certainly complain about all such deliberately deceptive made up terms.
The right versus left goes all the way back to the French revolution, and the conservative versus liberal split without the directional terminology goes back to at least the English Civil War.
There is absolutely nothing but deception involved in trying to label the progressives in both parties in the first half of the 20th Century "The Old Right" and then use them as an appeal to authority to try to invert reality and make free trade "conservative" and tariffs "progressive".

 

[acptulsa]

There is absolutely nothing but deception involved in trying to label the progressives in both parties in the first half of the 20th Century "The Old Right"...

But they were all more conservative than you are. Nobody in the country a hundred years ago would even consider supporting a stop-n-frisk candidate like you do.

 

[Swordsmyth]

But they were all more conservative than you are. Nobody in the country a hundred years ago would even consider supporting a stop-n-frisk candidate like you do.

Against the free all the violent criminals while importing hundreds of thousands more candidate?

Really?

You aren't even funny anymore, you have pushed comedy all the way past farce and into complete dissociation from reality.

 

[acptulsa]

Against the free all the violent criminals while importing hundreds of thousands more candidate?

There was no such thing a hundred years ago. It wasn't until Coolidge retired that conservatives started letting progs get away with murder by refusing to stand by conservative principles. You know. The way you do.