Whitlock rambling

There is definitely something there.  Trump as almost a cult figure hurts the right.  What was conservative doctrine for most of my life has been discarded.     Trump has been a opportunistic politician with an appeal that is more right wing populism than any coherent conservative philosophy.  Or appeal to pragmatic governance.

There is a problematic element in his appeal that is authoritarian. Built on hyping the need for a strong man rather than a wise one.  There is a problematic element in the tendency to demonize and tear down all political opposition and not recognize the genuine concerns of his opponents. Even those in his own party. We can do better than that and not wage war the middle as much as the far left.

Embracing populism which is at the heart an appeal for a world where there are simple solutions has the inherent danger of reducing complicated issues to simplistic "us versus them" confrontations with no way to effectively govern.    There are complicated problems where solution gets lostt when we appeal to nostalgic memories of a world in vague past where these did not seem to be problems at all. 

Hmmm.  Guess you missed the part of my post above about oversimplification and over generalization. 

I can't tell whether you are praising Trump, or praising populism, or just making a knee jerk criticism of anything that might be liberal.  In this case not really applicable. 

Probably didn't read that long post you linked where I am agreeing with much of what is said there.   My criticism of populism is strictly from a conservative point of view.  The GOP has given up on many core principles of conservative thought and embraced confrontation.  Much of the time NOT on conservative principle.  The Senate once had a reputation for crafting compromise on issues that divided Americans and for getting things done. 

Immigration, free trade, and international leadership by the US are solid traditional conservative principles.  Allowing local government to make decisions, allowing school boards to be basically nonpolitical, were conservative governing principles. Public health was not a political issue. Conservatives voted by a strong majority in Congress for voting rights.

I have no idea what that means.  

Trump is all about managing perceptions though.  Without real commitment to any coherent conservative political philosophy.  He harnesses discontent about change in the world, and advocates return to a nostalgic past, often not quite as great as we remember. 

He seems to me quite adept managing perceptions, and at creating perceived intent of his opponents to harm his constituency and the perceived  need for action which only he can take to protect them.  

Whatever the outcome of his actual action or failure to act, he declares it a great success. 

Promoted?  Aren't you guilty here of selling a "perceived intent?"  And aren't we really straying from discussion of political action and intent?

What was promoted was intended to be peaceful and nonviolent protest. (Most protests across the country were peaceful and nonviolent. And NOT riots.)  

Breaking into stores by rioters to steal property or purely to destroy it seems to me without any serious political motive.  On the other hand breaking into Congress to disrupt the business of the Congress, with violent intent to harm elected officials is a political motive.    It was hardly spontaneous reaction to a shocking and surprising event,  did involve considerable planning and preparation by "conservative" organized elements such as the proud boys to coincide with Constitutional duties of the Congress.  

Of course I was not talking about either one as a defensible part of coherent conservative or liberal thought.