^From that article
> the right stances on the right issues—immigration, trade, and war—right from the beginning.
Immigration: Changed his mind.
Trade: He’s a protectionist, so he’s instantly disqualified. Either you’re free market, or you’re just some form of socialist.
War: He says Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush lied. Hey, which, I personally agree with, but I didn’t recall most other right-wingers thinking that way.
> Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes?
This is no different than asking how ending the minimum wage would alleviate employment problems. If a man is choking to death, you should stop choking him. Yes, this does help.
> Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left,
Cubans. Vietnamese. Hell, even Venezuelans, all point out how this is wrong.
People who have lived to experience Socialism’s ills, are very much open to the idea that socialism is itself wrong. Those people, all majoritivly support conservatives in elections. They could have been joined by more… but we were too busy forwarding Unionist BS.
Identity politics; it’s not Conservative, and it won’t save conservatism.
> On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent.
WOW. Okay, I’ll give major props for saying that much.
> By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism
A term the left loves to throw around. Here’s Obama doing it. Here’s Clinton doing it. Here’s Bernie Sanders doing it.
A term that means you likely don’t get economics. Politics rather is your ball game, and you only pay attention to economics where it intersects with your political concerns. Which mean everything you know about economics itself, is shallow, and incomplete, and you will bend its claims where you find convenient.
Because you were never truly interested in economics to begin with. If it had no intersects with your true interests, you would have ignored it entirely.
Leaving those of us who do have an interest in economics for-its-own-sake, shaking our heads at the naive philistine, dimly trying to “instruct” us as to what is or isn’t “important”.