Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts

Sunday, April 21, 2024

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 65th Edition. Reprehensible and Admirable.

The actions by Wyoming's GOP in regard to its Republican Governor, that is.  That's reprehensible.

Here's the story:

The corpse of the GOP is really beginning to smell.

Accountability?  The Wyoming GOP, solidly in the grips of Dixiecrats, isn't looking at much of the world realistically, and as House Member Jerry Obermeuller pointed out in his op ed in the Trib, the claim that it admires Wyoming's "traditionalism" is a joke.  It's assaulting that traditionalism, looking more to the traditionalism of the post Reconstruction South.  It's frightening.

But then there was this:

Wonders Never Cease

As Fr. Franco points out, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is suddenly acting like a responsible real conservative, just as Governor Gordon has been all along.    The Wyoming GOP, which had been badly behind the curve recently, might not be noticing this, but with even populists dumping Congress and some in real election trouble, we might barely, only barely, hope that the Trump Reign of Terror may be starting to wane.  

Johnson has made much of his being a religious man, which he genuinely is.  He apparently prayed before ultimately taking this action, and he suddenly seems to have a spine.  

Wyoming's lone Congressman, attuned to her populist base, voted against the aid.  This will please the populists, who are not conservatives.  Secretary of State Gray, no doubt, would state he was against the aid package if asked, but nobody will bother to ask him.  He's running for Governor right now, and the State best dearly hope that a traditionalist, such as the type Obermueller mentioned, runs.  

But here's the thing.  Politics are fickle.  If Putin wins in Ukraine and in a year or two rolls in to Poland and the Balkans, the very people today who have a Sweet Home Alabama type of view of the world will be all for the fight, which they won't be in.  And nobody will remind them either, as all of the Trumpist will claim they were never for him, when that day comes.

Sadly, it appears to have a strong chance of coming.

But, as Fr. Franco noted

The prophet Ezekiel famously said: if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 

Things have a way of going in directions we can't predict.  Maybe there's hope yet.

Last prior edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 64th Edition. Things authentic and important.

Friday, April 19, 2024

The 2024 Election, Part XVI. The Compromised Morals Edition

Richard Rich, 1st Baron Rich

April 10, 2024

Donald Trump released a four-minute video attempting to thread the needle on abortion, and largely failed.

Abortion is proving to be an odd issue in this election.  Following 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, the Democratic Party became increasingly pro death, with left the GOP as the pro-life default party.  It was generally pro-life, as a conservative party, but it was more vague about it for many years than a person might suppose.  This paid off for pro-life forces when the decision, which even informed left wing legal thinkers felt impossible to really defend, fell due to a Mitch McConnell influenced Supreme Court, appointed by Donald Trump.   That was a long wished for conservative result, which Trump claimed credit for, not without some justification, but largely due to Trump giving McConnell free rein on Supreme Court appointments.

This has ended up being a hot election issue ever since, but it's still very poorly understood as to its impact.  Various conservative states have enacted laws restricting or banning abortion (some old laws have just come back into operation) and it's ended up a ballot issue elsewhere.  Democrats believe that the issue works in their favor, although how that squares with elected legislatures restricting it isn't very clear.  Added to that, right wing Republicans began to push for a Federal nationwise restriction on abortion, which is something they haven't really fleshed out, thinking wise.  A Federal law, while universal, seems to suggest a compromise on the topic, which is a topic that can't really be compromised on, at least on the pro-life side.  That is, unless its just a nationwide ban, which seems to have little chance of passing.  The various proposals make just about 0 intellectual sense whatsoever.  A person either believes that all life has value, in which case it does from the first instance, or they believe it really doesn't, and should only be protected at an arbitrary point at which its too icky to admit to killing.

Enter the candidates on the issue. . . 

Joe Biden, who is a Catholic and morally obligated to believe that all life is sacred, instead has opted for an apparent state of personal mortal sin and is for allowing the killing, with his campaign featuring that position, and he is still being allowed to receive Communion for some reason that's hard to grasp. Donald Trump, who has a predatory relationship with women to at least some degree, and who has been pretty keen on bedding women of a certain type, kept his views secret until earlier this week when, in a four-minute video, he came out for no Federal law at all.

No Federal law is the position of some conservative, but politically savvy, Republicans who aren't Trumpers.  It is, for example, Chris Christie's position's was that the states should decide the issue for their states.  But the concept of a nationwise ban has received increasing support in conservative camps due to some states enacting broad permissive abortion laws.  It should be noted, others have enacted restrictive ones, like Wyoming (whose law is gummed up in court due to an incredibly dim witted paranoid law that enshrines personal medical choices as its supporters were rampaging paranoid about imaginary Obamacare "death panels".

This raises a lot of interesting questions, one being what does Trump actually think?  Frankly, Trump doesn't appear to be a deep thinker on anything, but on this issue it's known that he's run the gambit in views, originally being in the pro death camp.  His coming out the way he did appears to be in hopes of avoiding the issue, stating that it's a state rights issue.  After giving his four-minute flat affect speech, he came out again today on the Arizona Supreme Court finding a territorial era statute banning abortion was constitutional and revised, which makes perfect sense legally.  Noting that it was his appointees that brought the reversal of Roe finally around, he stated that the Arizona action, which again makes perfect legal sense, "went too far", which makes no legal sense but which reflects the view that most people have on courts which is that they're a policy legislature, which they aren't.

Life or death being a state's rights issue is lame in more ways than one.  A person could argue it on a practical basis, that being that leaving it up to states is the only way for any peace on the issue at all, which is more or less Christie's position. Trump's view came out like a rambling mish mash of a confused intellect, which is a bit surprising as somebody must have written his statement for him.

Indeed, the fact that he read it brings up the issue of his mental status. Statements that he reads tend to come out with a very flat affect, which has yet to be explained.  People continue to ignore the question of what's going on, organically, in his head.

All this has left some interesting fallout.  Serious pro lifers are left wondering about who to support, with some having supported Trump in the past solely because of this issue.  "He's better than Biden" seems to be the common reaction.  But some are really upset. By the same token, Biden's designation of Easter as Transgender Visibility Day disgusted some who are fellow travelers on this issue.  Pro lifers have been major supporters of the GOP since 1973, and now they have reason to question the party's loyalty to them.

And it all shows how compromised the values of politicians are in general.

April 12, 2024

The Trump campaign, which avoided debates in the primaries, wants more debates in the general election and wants them to start soon.

Trump is likely worried that a lot of his speaking coming up will be in the form of testimony, and wants to distract from that.  Also, Trump no doubt feels he's a better speaker than Biden.

In actuality, neither of them are good speakers. Biden has had a lifelong stuttering problem which makes his speech a bit odd, and Trump's speech suggests that he's in the early to early-mid stage of the onset of dementia.  Absent a spectacular performance, or spectacular failure, by either candidate, debates probably aren't going to matter much, but contrary to common belief, Trump, who really goes off the rail if he departs from the teleprompter, is more likely to say something extraordinarily off the mark, weird, or incoherent.*

Cont:

Governor Gordon rightly rejected Secretary of State Gray's new voting rules.


Gray, who is clearly running for Governor and keeping populist heat turned up as a result, will undoubtedly reply with something shortly.

Elsewhere:

Eastern Shoshone educator Ivan Posey shares why he’s running for state House

April 13, 2024

Secretary of State Gray has an op ed in today's Trib entitled "Only Wyomingites Must Vote In Wyoming's Election".

It's a crime not to be a resident and vote in Wyoming's election, so this is a bit silly, but it's part of the Gray effort to whip up a frenzy in the populist right in part of his aim to run for Governor in 2026.  It's also more than a little ironic, as Gray is not a Wyomingite, and most of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus isn't either.  Jeanette Ward barely qualified to run for office when she ran for the seat Gray abandoned, as he tried first for the House and then for the SoS office.

Of course, "only Wyomingites" isn't what Gray means.

As always, Gray cited "radical left wing" activists as being his opponents.

Wyoming Democrats will caucus for the President today, not that it's going to matter. They'll choose Biden, and Biden will lose in Wyoming.

A Park County representative still wants all ballot counting in the county to be done by hand, but is being ignored as its a phenomenally bad idea.

Republican Dale Zwonitzer, a major House member from Cheyenne, is facing a run from Steve Johnson, Populist.  Zwonitzer has faced open hostility from the Populist right the last several years.

Colorado will have an abortion ballot initiative in the fall.

April 15, 2024

While hardly newsworthy, Joe Biden won the Wyoming Caucus Saturday.

April 16, 2024

Donald Trump's criminal trial regarded to the paying of hush money to three people, two of them pornographic personages, began yesterday in New York.

The favorite of the Evangelical right is accused of paying Stormy Daniels, a pornographic actress, and another person, a former Playboy playmate, hush money prior to the 2016 election so they'd keep their mouths shut abut his fucking them.  The third person is a doorman.  The crime is asserted to be election interference, I guess, which is frankly a little hard to grasp in this context.

A jury has not yet been selected.

April 18, 2024

Senator Barrasso announced yesterday that he's running for reelection to the Senate.

I frankly thought he'd already announced, as he was obviously running for reelection.  He has an opponent in the primary, Reid Rasner, who is running from the populist right.

I've mentioned the primary contest before, but I dismissed Rasner's campaign.  Frankly, I was in error to do so as at this point I think Rasner has a serious chance of beating Barrasso, and Barrasso obviously fears that as well.  Barrasso has been putting out hardcore populist, Trumpite, messages now for weeks. I strongly suspect that he doesn't believe in what he's tweeting, but he's taking this position, like almost every Republican political figure, in order to hang on to their jobs, even though it's killed the GOP.

Therefore, at the primary election, Wyoming will be presented with a contesnt between a genuine populist and a fake one.  Actual conservatives will vote for Barrasso, not for what he's saying, but what they suspect he actually believes.  Some populists will as well.

April 19, 2020

The GOP state convention defeated a bylaw proposal that would have provided a mechanism, probably ineffectively and illegally given the way party affiliation actually works, to kick actual Republicans out of the party.

One populists commented:

There was a group of citizens in Weston County very, very concerned about Liz Cheney and the way she tried to infiltrate and change our party,

Eh?

It's the populists who infilatrated the GOP, not the other way around.  Cheney is a real Republican.  Her opponents are largley Dixiecrats, but don't know it. 

Natrona County voters will have a ballot item on the fall to create a Senior Service District consisting of the entire county.  This will add 2 mills to people's taxes to fund senior services.

It's hugely unpopular to say so, but in an era in which Wyomingites are unhappy about all the growth they encouraged causing property values to rise (d'uh!) this will pass anyhow, and shouldn't.  The current generation of seniors has had the best breaks of any generation in history, continues to basically control the country, and is fairly wealthy overall, even if individual members of the generation are not.  A 2 mill tax effectively takes cash out of everyone's pockets to fulfill a need that people should have filled on their own, or that their families should.

Footnotes:

*Something you'll sometimes hear from Trump supporters is that "he talks like us".  I fear that might be true, which is we're beginning to sound mildly demented and addled as a society.

Last prior edition:

The 2024 Election, Part XV. The Disappointing Choices edition.

Thursday, April 18, 2024

The Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas. Panem et circenses

 


April 17, 2024. 

 9.4 million illegal aliens have entered this country under President Biden, 1 million more than the population of New York City and more than 16x the population of Wyoming.

The unprecedented invasion is a direct result of the open borders agenda of 

@POTUS

 and Alejandro Mayorkas.

From a Twitter post of Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis.

Alejandro Mayorkas is not going to be removed from office.  

Moreover, everyone with any political savvy knows this.  Sen. Lummis knows this, as do the other members of Wyoming's Washington representation, one of whom will be a prosecutor in the impeachment trial, if an impeachment trial actually occurs, which I very much doubt.

Rather, the Senate Republicans will screw around with this until the Democrats dismiss it.  

The validity of the impeachment process will be tarnished even more than it has been since the ill-advised GOP effort to impeach Bill Clinton brought us into the modern political impeachment era, and the border won't get address, in no small part because Donald Trump, who is in the first of what will be several trials, would rather have it as issue than address it.

Congress, of course, could have addressed this, but for following the Trump directive to the GOP.  There's utterly no excuse for the GOP failure to act.  If the bill wasn't prefect, it was much better than any others for years, and if they take a two house and Oval Office majority in November, which I doubt they will, they could have improved it.  Indeed, their failure to act not only makes this look incredibly hypocritical, but puts them in jeopardy of losing the House.

We will see a Twitter storm of GOP tweets.  Most will be ignored. The worshiping spectrum of the GOP, the ignorant populists masses, will swoon over every word while the now purifying corpse of the GOP elephant starts to stink even more, actual Republicans and conservatives not knowing how to remove it.

Indeed, on the Twitter Storm, populist far right Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer took to twitter to demand that Mayorkas receive a full trial in the Senate as, she suggested, the Constitution demands, while at least one of her critics noted she didn't feel that way when Trump was up for impeachment.

All this while very little gets done and Americans lose faith in their government, save for a tiny sliver who somehow feel the dissolution of a 200+ year old institution is serving democracy, when in fact it's destroying it.

April 18, 2024

And the Senate dismissed the articles of impeachment, making my prediction of no trial accurate.  I thought there would be a motion to dismiss, and there was.

The motion came up immediately, and Chuck Schumer offered debate time, but Republicans, who apparently have no sense of procedure, rejected that, demanding a full trial, and thereby demonstrating the sort of hubris, ignorance and stupidity that criminal defendants sometimes do. Schumer replied and went right to the vote. 

The vote was down the party line, Republicans who know better not having the guts to vote in favor of the motion.

By this point, the dysfunctional circus that Congress has become now attracts so little attention for even extraordinary events, which this fits into as it's an extraordinary dereliction of duty and common sense by those who voted for it in the House, that it doesn't even make the primary headlines.

No doubt Wyoming's Senators went home and breathed a sigh of relief, being spared acting on this absurdity, and also being spared the pangs of acting in contravention to their conscience.  And the issue is preserved for red meat tweets, texts and speeches, so attacking the Democrats on an issue that Republicans refused to act on, when they had the chance, can still be done.

And hence this circus closed.

Blog mirror: The Party’s Over

 

The Party’s Over

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Thursday, April 17, 1924. Japanese reaction.

Political cartoonists were making fun of it, but the Japanese were both measured and enraged by the passage of the Japanese Exclusion Act.  On this day, Japanese businesses in Japan began cancelling orders from the US in reaction.

Regarding the Chicago Tribune cartoon from above, one of the most remarkable things about it is that the cartoonist included five political parties.  One wouldn't do that today.

Wyoming's Senator F. E. Warrren was already urging reconsideration of the act, and urging meetings to consider its impact.

The All-India Yadav Mahasabha was formed to promote equal treatment of and rights for Yadav people, the poorest people in India's caste system.

Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures Corporation and Louis B. Mayer Pictures were merged by Marcus Loew to form Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

In baseball:

April 17, 1924: Baby Doll Jacobson hits for the cycle, but Browns lose to White Sox

Last prior edition:

Wednesday, April 16, 1924. Flyer forced down.

Saturday, April 13, 2024

The 2026 Election, 1st Edition: Spring Training Edition.

Walter "Big Train" Johnson, April 11, 1924.

Yes, the 2024 Election hasn't even occured yet, and the 2026 one is clearly on, at least locally.

What we can tell for sure is that Chuck Gray is running for the office of Governor.  He always was.  The Secretary of State's office was very clearly a mere stepping stone in that plan, and the plan probably goes on from there.   By coming to Wyoming, a state with a low population and a pronounced history of electing out of staters (we nearly have some sort of personality problem in that regard), it was a good bet, particularly when combined with his family money, although it was never a sure bet that he'd make the legislature and on from there.  His plan requires, however, or at least he seemingly believes it requires, that he keep his name in the news, which he's worked hard to do, being involved in lawsuits, which is probably unconstitutional on his part, and releasing press releases that are extraordinary for his role, and for the invective language they contain.  Mr. Gray has probably used the term "radical leftists" more in his two years of office than all of the prior Wyoming Secretaries of State combined.

This explains something that was otherwise a bit odd that we noticed recently, which was Secretary Gray's appearance in Casper in opposition of something he'd otherwise voted for:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 63d Edition. Strange Bedfellows.

 


Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.

William Shakespeare, The Tempest

The environmental populists?

Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows.  But how strange, nonetheless still surprises.

Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, who rose to that position by pitching to the populist far right, which dominates the politics of the GOP right now, and which appears to be on the verge of bringing the party down nationally, has tacked in the wind in a very surprising direction.  He appeared this past week at a meeting in Natrona County to oppose a proposed gravel pit project at the foot of Casper Mountain.  He actually pitched for the upset residents in the area to mobilize and take their fight to Cheyenne, stating:

We have a very delicate ecosystem, the fragility up there, the fragility of the flows … the proximity to domestic water uses. All of those things should have led to a distinct treatment by the Office of State Lands, and that did not happen.

I am, frankly, stunned.  

I frankly never really expected Mr. Gray to darken visage of the Pole Stripper monument on the east side of Casper's gateway, which you pass by on the road in from Cheyenne again, as he's not from here and doesn't really have a very strong connection to the state, although in fairness that connection would have been to Casper, where he was employed by his father's radio station and where he apparently spent the summers growing up (in an unhappy state of mind, according to one interview of somebody who knew him then).  Gray pretty obviously always had a political career in mind and campaigned from the hard populist right from day one, attempting at first to displace a conservative house member unsuccessfully.

We have a post coming up which deals with the nature of populism, and how it in fact isn't conservatism.  Gray was part of the populist rise in the GOP, even though his background would more naturally have put him in the conservative camp, not the populist one.  But opportunity was found with populists, who now control the GOP state organization.  The hallmark of populism, as we'll explore elsewhere, is a belief in the "wisdom of the people", which is its major failing, and why it tends to be heavily anti-scientific and very strongly vested in occupations that people are used to, but which are undergoing massive stress.  In Wyoming that's expressed itself with a diehard attitude that nothing is going on with the climate and that fossil fuels will be, must have, and are going to dominate the state's economy forever.   The months leading up to the recent legislative session, and the legislative session itself, demonstrated this with Governor Gordon taking criticism for supporting anything to address carbon concerns.  Put fairly bluntly, because a large percentage of Wyoming's rank and file workers depend on the oil and gas industry, and things related to it, any questioning on anything tends to be taken as an attack on "the people".

Natrona County has had a gravel supply problem for quite a while and what the potential miner seeks to do here is basically, through the way our economy works, address it.  There would be every reason to suspect that all of the state's politicians who ran to the far right would support this, and strongly.  But they aren't.

The fact that Gray is not, and is citing environmental concerns, comes as a huge surprise.  But as noted, given his background, he's probably considerably more conservative than populist, but has acted as politicians do, and taken aid and comfort where it was offered.  Tara Nethercott ran as a conservative and lost for the same office.

But here's the thing.

That gravel is exactly the sort of thing that populists, if they're true to what they maintain they stand for, ought to support.  It's good for industry, and the only reason to oppose the mining is that 1) it's in a bad place in terms of the neighbors and 2) legitimate environmental concerns, if there are any.  But that's exactly the point.  You really can't demand that the old ways carry on, until they're in your backyard.  

Truth be known, given their nature, a lot of big environmental concerns are in everyone's backyard right now.

The old GOP would have recognized that nationally, and wouldn't be spending all sorts of time back in DC complaining about electric vehicles.  And if people are comfortable with things being destructive elsewhere, they ought to be comfortable with them being destructive right here.  If we aren't, we ought to be pretty careful about it everywhere.

There actually is some precedent for this, FWIW.  A hallmark of Appalachian populism was the lamenting of what had happened to their region due to coal mining.  John Prine's "Paradise" in some ways could be an environmental populist anthem.

Right about the time I noted this, Rod Miller, opinion writer for the Cowboy State Daily, wrote a satiric article on the same thing:

Rod Miller: Flip-Flops Around The Ol’ Campfire

We have no idea, of course, who his opponent will be, unless it's Gordon, who is theoretically term limited out, but we already know from prior litigation that the restraint on his running again is unconstitutional.  And Gordon clearly doesn't like Gray, a dislike that's not limited to him by any means.  Gordon would have to challenge that in court, however, unless 1) a group of citizens does, and 2) the court ruled they'd have standing.

As voters, they should.

If that happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see Gordon run again, and to be asked to run again.  While he was a candidate initially I worried about him, as he was further to the right on public lands issues than any candidate since Geringer, but he's actually acted as a very temperate Governor, something made difficult by 1) the intemperate level of our current politics, and 2) the occasional shortsightedness of the legislature.1

Anyhow, if you've ever had the occasion to see, Gordon and Gray together in an official setting, it's clear they don't get along.  Indeed, on the State Land Board, it's clear that Gordon isn't the only one that's not keen on Gray.  Gray for his part reacts back, as he did recently when he sent an unprecedented lengthy letter to the Governor on his vetoes. 

Gray, like Donald Trump, has some feverish admirers.2  Indeed, this seems to be a hallmark of the populist right.  They not only run candidates, but they develop personality cults routinely.

Rod Miller, again, in a recent column noted a real problem that Gray has.  As, so far, they haven't really been able to advance their agenda without the help of conservatives, they have an advantage there as they always portray themselves as besieged by the numerous barbarians, the last legionnaire on Hadrian's Wall.  Trump has actually, at a national level, worked to keep that status by ordering his party to defeat immigration legislation that was probably a once in a lifetime conservative opportunity.

Anyhow, as noted, Rod Miller recently noted a problem that Gray has.  He's not married.

Rod Miller: Bride Of Chucky – Or – Advice To The Lovelorn From The Ol’ Campfire

Is this actually a problem?

It shouldn't be, but it might be.

Indeed, without going into it, there was a figure in Wyoming decades ago whose marriage was questioned by whisperers on the basis that they believed he married just to end the speculation on why he wasn't married.   The marriage lasted a very long time, so presumably the rumors were without foundation, but there were questions, which is interesting and shows, I guess, how people's minds can work.  

Another way to look at it, I supposed, was prior to Trump if a person was a conservative people would ask about things that appeared to be contrary to public statements about conservatism.  Not being married, for a conservative, was regarded as odd, and for that matter there are still people who whisper about Lindsey Graham, while nobody seems to worry about AOC being shacked up with her boyfriend or whatever is going on with Krysten Sinema. 

And then there's Gray's age.  It will make people suspicious of him at some point, or people will at least take note.  Indeed, some of his critics from the left already have, but in a really juvenile way.

Actually determining Gray's age is a little difficult, and indeed, knowing anything about his background actually is.  But Cowboy State Daily, a conservative organ, managed to reveal about as much as we know.

Gray was born in California and raised outside of Los Angeles.  According to somebody close to the family, or who was, he was homeschooled by his mother.3 He felt uncomfortable about his birthplace, and stated in the campaign

I come from a divorced family, like many people in our country. A judge said I was to live in a different place, but my dad lived here, built a business here, and I spent my summers here during the time that was allocated by the judge.

According to the same source, he didn't seem all that happy in Casper, Wyoming as a kid, but the circumstances could well explain that.  The same source, who probably isn't a family friend anymore, reported to the Cowboy that Gray's father had a focus on the family owned radio station impacting legislation at a national level.  Photos have been circulated of the father with President Reagan.

Gray graduated from high school in 2008 and the respected University of Pennsylvanian in 2012, which makes it all the more remarkable that he's been a success in Wyoming politics.4   If we assume the norm about graduation ages, he would have been 22 in 2012, which would make him 34 now.

In Wyoming, the average age for men to marry is 27.8 years on average, while for women it's 25.6.  Gray's now notably over the median age, but that is a median.  I was over it too when I married at age 31.  My wife was below the female one.  That's how averages work.

My parents, I'd note, were both over the median, although I don't know it with precision for the 1950s.  In the 50s, the marriage age was actually at an unusual low.  My father was 29, and my mother 32.

So his age, in the abstract, doesn't really mean anything overall, although it might personality wise.

As has been noted elsewhere on this site, Gray is a Roman Catholic and indeed I've seen him occasionally at Mass, although I would never have seen him every weekend as there are a lot of weekend Masses and my habits aren't the same as his.  I have no reason to believe that he didn't attend weekly as required by the church.5  Catholics are supposed to observe traditional Catholic teachings in regard to sex and marriage.  I'm not really going to be delving into that, but again we have no reason to believe that Gray isn't observant, in which case, as he is not married, he should be living as a chaste single man, and he probably is (something that has casued juvenile left wing ribbing).

Wyoming, however, is the least religious state in the union and while Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and Protestants of traditional morality observe that morality, here, as with the rest of the United States, the late stage mass casualty nature of the Sexual Revolution means that a lot of people in these faiths don't, and the society at large does not.  We've gone from a society where such outside the bounds of marriage behavior was illegal in varying degrees, to one where, nationwide, society pushes people into things whether they want to or not.

Be that as it may, save for Casper, Laramie, and probably Cheyenne, sexual conduct outside the biological gender norm is very much looked down upon.  Indeed, in a really dense move, a Democratic Albany County legislator went to a meeting in Northeast Wyoming a while back on homosexual issues and was shocked by the hostile reception she received.  She shouldn't have been.

No, I'm not saying this applies to Gray.  I have no reason to believe that, and indeed I believe the opposite.

However, we've gone from a state whose ethos was "I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone" to one in which, largely due to the importation of Evangelicals from elsewhere, a fairly large percentage of the population really care about what you do, particularly if they don't like it.

Indeed, at the time that Matthew Shepard was murdered, I was surprised when I heard an anti-homosexual comment.  Such comments do not surprise me now, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear one now in the context of a murder.  As noted, the exceptions seem to be Laramie (where Shepard was murdered, but which has never been hostile to homosexuals), Casper (which has had a homosexual 20 something mayor and which has a lesbian city council member) and Cheyenne (which has a homosexual member of the state House, as does Albany County).  Well, I omitted Jackson and should include it here too.

At any rate, being an open homosexual and aiming for major office probably is impossible, although for minor ones it hasn't proven to be.  The point is, however, that Miller is right. At some point, people are going to start wondering why staunchly populist Gray isn't married.

Maybe it's because he is in fact a staunchly populist out of state import.  There aren't that many women in that pool.  Indeed, having a one time vague contact with our staunchly populist Congresswoman, I was very surprised when it turned out she was a populist, or even a conservative.  I'm not saying that she's not, I'm just surprised.

Gray is in a sort of oddball demographic.  Not being from here, he wouldn't be in any circles in which women from here, professionals or otherwise, would be in.  He appears to really be a fish out of water in terms of the local culture.  When he appears at things, he does wear cowboy boots, but you can tell they've never been in a stirrup, and he otherwise is, at least based on my very limited observation of him, always dressed in what we might sort of regard as 1980s Denver Business Casual.  I'd be stunned if I saw him on a trout stream or out in the prairie with his bird dog, Rex.  I've seen him at a bar once, for a grand opening of something, but I don't imagine him walking up to the tender at The Buckhorn or The Oregon Trail and ordering a double Jack Daniel's either.

I was once told by an out-of-state lawyer who had been born in the state but who had moved to Denver after graduating from law school, regarding Wyomingites, that "you have to be tough just to live there".  People who live here probably don't realize that, but there's more than a little truth to it.  I'm often shocked by the appearance of populist legislature Jeanette Ward, as it's so clear she just doesn't belong here.  She's not the kind of gal who would be comfortable sitting next to the ranch girl chewing tobacco who has the "Wrangler Butts Drive Me Nuts" bumper sticker on her pickup truck.6   Gray probably isn't comfortable with such a gal either.  "Tomboys", as they used to be called, are sort of the mean average for Wyoming women.  

Gray is well-educated, of course, which is part of the reason that I suspect a lot of his positions are affectations.  I don't think he really believes the election was stolen, for example, unless he's doing so willfully, which would mean that he really doesn't believe that.  Recently he's taken on the topic of firearms arguing, as part of the State Facilities Commission, that the state needs to open up carrying guns at the capitol, which is frankly absurd.  While I don't know the answer, I suspect that Gray isn't really a firearms' aficionado. 

Up until very recently, Wyomingites knew a lot about the people they sent to the legislature and public office, often knowing them personally to some degree.  We actually knew the Governor and the First Lady on some basis other than politics, quite frequently, and our local reps we knew pretty well.  The populist invasion defeated that to some degree, and in some cases, a great deal.  The question is whether this is permanent, or temporary.  It wasn't until the last election that people looked at Gray's background at all, and they still have very little.  People haven't really grasped until just now that many of the Freedom Caucus are imports, not natives.  We don't know much about some of them or their families, and chances are an average Wyomingite, or at least a long term native, would regard them as odd on some occasions.  Chuck Gray just ran an op ed that was titled something like Only Wyomingites Should Vote In Wyoming's Elections.  Most long term and native born Wyomingites feel that strongly, and wouldn't actually regard a lot of our current office holders as being Wyomingites.

There's evidence that the populist fad is passing. We'll see. This and the 2026 election will be a test of it.  2026 is a long ways off.  For that matter, it's sufficiently long enough for these candidates to evolve if they need to. Some are probably capable of doing that.  Others, undoubtedly not.  The question will be if they need to.

Footnotes

1. There are numerous examples of this, but a really good one is Gordon's effort to buy the UP checkerboard, which the legislature defeated.  It would have been a real boon for the state, but fiscal conservatives just couldn't see it that way.

Recently, Gordon hasn't been shy about vetoing highly unadvised bills that have come out of the legislature, or shutting down bad regulations that come out of the Secretary of State's office.

2.  And not just Gray, Harriet Hageman does as well.

3. Homeschooling, for whatever reason a person does it, can be developmentally limiting.  I don't know about Gray's case, but its notable that some on the far right have done it, as they believe that schools are left wing organs and there are things they don't want their children exposed to them.  The problem this presents is that children who are homeschooled grow up in a very narrow environment, whereas, at least here, those who go to public, and for that matter religious schools, do not.

4. There used to be a school interview of him from the University of Pennsylvania, in which he expressed a desire to become a lawyer.  He's clearly not going to do that now, unless of course his political career ended, which is perfectly possible.

5.  As noted here in prior posts, lying is regarded as a potentially serious sin in Catholicism, and lying about something like who won the 2020 election would be, in some circumstances, a mortal sin if you were a political figure.  

6.  Ward is from Illinois and openly calls herself a political refugee. At the time of moving here, she posted something about her children not having to wear masks in our public schools, adopting the far right wing view that trying to protect others in this fashion is somehow an intrusion on liberty.  I suppose it is, but not relieving yourself in public is as well.  Anyhow, at some point, presuming those children remain in public school, she'll be in for a shock as Casper's schools truly have a really wide demographic and are not exactly made up of an Evangelical populist sample of the population.

Monday, April 1, 2024

The 2024 Wyoming Legislative Session. Part 7. After the Party II

 


March 26, 2024

The fissures in the state's GOP have become all the more apparent as Populists, who are not conservatives, accuse Governor Gordon, who is, of being a RINO, which he isn't, and actually, they more or less are, at least by historical standards.

In the words of one of the great works of art of our time, it looks like a lot of people yesterday went to Crabby O'Monday's.


This following an earlier indication that no special session would be called.

Nothing enrages Wyomingites more than having to pay the freight for what they've encouraged by growth oriented policies.  Yes, property values went up, and taxes with them.  That was inevitable.

At least one property relief bill did pass that gives relief. . . to those over 65, in keeping with the general Boomer oriented policies of the US.  

The thought no doubt is to avoid punishing long time residents, like me, who have owned their house forever, like me, and who are suffering elevated tax rates as imports are driving up property values.  I do get that.  But it's also a byproduct of what we noted above.  

Just of good of argument could be made that Wyoming natives in their 20s and 30s should get a tax break, as they're just starting out.

Anyhow, fwiw, I doubt that the tax relief bill is constitutional.



Whatever a person thinks of it, vetoing the Gun Free Zone repeal bill was not unconstitutional.  Moreover, Gordon was correct that the repeal interferes with local sovereignty, which we claim we love, until we don't.

Bills like this generate a lot more heat than light.  I don't know of any recent instance of anyone being convicted of violating a gun free zone.  Maybe that's a reason to repeal the law, but getting in a major tither about it really serves no interest.  In terms of issues facing the state, this one is in the basement.


The Cowboy State Daily, satirically, pointed out something that occured to me after I wrote about the event in the Zeitgeist threads, Secretary of State Gray, who does not get along with Governor Gordon, has started his campaign for office in 2026.  He's running for Governor.


Gordon and Gray have gotten into arguments in State Land Board sessions before, with Gordon accusing Gray of not reading material that's submitted to him.  Here, Gray took a shot at the Board, but it turns out that he voted for what's progressing, which is hard to explain.  The press has now picked up Gray voting in favor of the mining leases when they came before the State Land Board, of which he and Gordon are both part.


Gray having come to Casper to appear at a meeting was probably not really well calculated.

March 27, 2024

March 29, 2024

Secretary of State Chuck Gray, who is clearly running for Governor, acknowledged receipt of the Governor's vetoes of certain legislation with a long letter, something that's frankly extraordinary, and in the nature of campaigning.


Frankly, this was completely inappropriate for the holder of an elective office whose tasks are mostly ministerial.

March 30, 2024
The WEA resumed its campaign against Jeanette Ward.


The WEA efforts against Populist Ward seem unique as they've also purchased a web expression on the Trib's site, so they're seeking maximum coverage against the recent Illinois import.

April 1, 2024

The legislature voted against a special session, 50 to 43.

Cont:

The rift between the Freedom Caucus and the remainder of the state's GOP in office grows larger:


Related threads:


Last prior edition:

Sunday, March 31, 2024

Hurling invectives.


This may seem like a strange thing to put up for Easter Morning, but maybe it isn't.

One of our major elected office holders in this state is a Catholic.  And yet, in spite of that, he makes vile accusations against entire classes of people constantly.  Other members of the "Freedom Caucus" claim to be Christian, but their speech sure doesn't indicate it.  One, the session before last, who claimed in her native state of Illinois that Muslims worship a different God than Christians (they don't, Allah is simply the Arabic word for "God", and while they may understand God's nature differently than we do, they worship the same God) claimed that "we are not our brother's keeper".  The hard populist right around here frequently cites to religion, even if they are not all the same religion.  

Christ could be angry, as his chasing the money changers out of the Temple indicates.  We have to wonder what will occur to a Presidential candidate, whose connection with Christianity is paper thin, will receive in the next life for hawking Bibles as part of his campaign. But for now, we can wonder how a group of people who claim to be the representatives of the culture can behave so badly.

People who do this routinely are not speaking intelligently, and in fact are attempting to distract from intelligent debate.

You should consider that when listening to public figures.

We live in an age in which intelligent debate has declined to an all-time low.  In its place, we have now what the Nazis and the Communist had, insulters who scream, while saying very little that's intelligent or worth considering. Their goal is to inspire hatred, as if love for an idea won't be forthcoming, hatred of a demonized class will do.

Politicians and figures who routinely insert words like "radical", "leftist", "fascist", "Marxist", and "Communist" into their speech are not arguing points, they're trying to inspire hatred and avoiding thought.   

For days, I've been getting emails from a figure I at least somewhat respected, and have voted for in the past, accusing the current administration of being "radical", sometimes in the most absurd ways.  One such missive asserts the Democrats are intentionally out to make things worse for Americans, which is flat out absurd.  It's constant.  The contest locally, right now, is in the GOP itself, and given that, as I'm still reluctantly registered as a Republican, I'll be struggling in regard to my vote in the primary, with the question being whether I should cast a vote at all.  I likely will, but come the general election, I'm going to weigh this behavior.

A current state office holder who is a co religious cannot speak without speaking of his opponents as "Radical leftists and liberal elites", whipping up ire towards imagined categories that simply really aren't here.  There are no Red bands roaming the prairies around Cheyenne.

For that matter, being an "elite" is a good thing.  In this context, "elite" implies highly educated and successful.  If the highly educated and successful think your position is dimwitted, it probably is.

More than one Populist, who are not Conservatives, now run around constantly accusing Governor Gordon of being a Democrat, by which they mean not a Populist. We're teetering on the brink of RINO meaning "not a fascist".  It already darned near means that the speaker is a Southern Populist with ideas that are not native to this state, and which are being spouted in an unthinking manner.

Taking it nationally, the former President, who apparently has so little grasp of political categories that he doesn't understand the difference between communism and fascism (Wharton School of Business. . . why are you respected?) recently stated “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”.

A person who links all those categories together is, frankly, is either ignorant or bizarrely deluded.  People who swallow this up, are really ignorant.

Now, let's be honest.  At one time, particularly in the 60s and 70s, the far left did the same thing.  Everyone who opposed them or who wasn't with them was a "fascist".  And in more modern times, the far left progressives have done the same, often with really bizarro accusations that everyone who isn't with them is part of a widespread "white" and "male" conspiracy.  

But that's the point.  To a large degree, nobody really take the far left in the United States seriously, usually, because they are clowns.  Recently they have been successful, however, in a gender bending effort, which is helping to give rise to the Populist far right.

But both sides are anti-natural, anti-scientific, swimming in the toddler section movements.  They're unthinking.

And as we have real problems, we need real thought, now.

And at any rate, running around that your opponent must be a Communist, Marxist, Monarchist, Anarchist, Pedophile, Audiophile, Anglophile, RINO is not dignified. 

And for those who claim to be Christian, well you should reconsider your presentation. 

You might want to reconsider your personal lives also, particularly if you are one of the numerous members of the Christian Nationalist camp whom St. Paul might have a few things to address them about.

Monday, March 25, 2024

A Primer, Part I. Populists ain't Conservatives, and LIberals ain't Progressives. How inaccurate terminology is warping our political perceptions.


Conservatives are not Populists.

Far from it.

Liberals aren't Progressives.

Liberals and Conservatives have more in common, than they do to the other categories noted above

Populists and Progressives share many common traits.

Confused?

We hope to clear that up.  But let's start with this. A lot of commentary, particularly of an uneducated type, keeps referring to Donald Trump as "a conservative", and sadly, a lot of true conservatives fall right into line with that fallacy.  Populists right now continually refer to themselves as conservatives, which is because they don't know what conservatives actually are.

They'd likely be horrified if they did.  And indeed, occasionally they are.

Donald Trump is not a conservative.  He's a populist, or is appealing to them. There's a world of difference. People who figure he stands for conservative values are deeply misguided on this point.  He doesn't.  But in the right/left thin gruel political world we live in, it's slightly understandable how people could be misguided on this linguistic point.

But it's wrong.

Let's take a look at it.  More particularly, what are conservatives, liberals, populists and progressives, the four main branches of what we have around in terms of political philosophies right now.

Let's start with this. What is a conservative?

What is a conservative?


Logo of the British Conservative Party.

At the core of their Weltanschauung, conservatives believe that human nature is essentially fixed, and that it's been fixed by an existential external.  Religious conservatives believe that the existential external is God, but not all conservatives are religious conservatives.1   Those who aren't, like George F. Will for example, would hold that the existential external is essentially our evolution.2

Because this is the core belief of conservatives, conservatives are strong advocates for the application of Chesterton's Fence, which holds:

Chesterton's Fence:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Chesterton, The Thing

This is why people tend to think that what conservatives stand for is not changing anything. This isn't really true, but they are very cautious about it.  Conservatives do not have any real faith that human nature is set to improve, and therefore have a large degree of caution regarding the changing of anything that's substantial until it can be determined why that thing came into existence in the first place.

And they believe that certain things, human nature, as noted, is essentially unchanging. Given this, they hope we all do as well as we can, but they don't have any view of remaking humanity or creating Heaven on Earth.

I'll note, I am, on most things, a conservative.

In most societies overall, except in cultures that are deeply conservative, conservatives are a minority.  They may be a large minority, but they are usually a minority.  The reason for this is that conservatism is, by its nature, somewhat pessimistic.  Conservatives hope things get better, but more than that hope they don't get worse, and often hope that the better is a return to some status quo ante that was less messed up.

Conservatives are nearly always a minority, which is one of their weaknesses, but they are also generally intellectual by nature, which is part of the reason that they are a minority and are comfortable being one.  Conservatives suspect most people instinctively agree with them, but don't know why, and they're comfortable with that as a rule.

A strength and weakness of conservatives is that they are reluctant to change things until its proven they need to be.  Conservatives believe that Chesterton's fence should have a pretty strong latch, or maybe even a keyed lock on it.  That's also a strength, however, as they're much less prone than others to whims of any kind.

Because conservatives do not feel that humans are in control of their natures, conservatives tend to be somewhat pessimistic as a rule, but they also don't except a lot of humankind in general. They generally feel that people are left best to their own devices, but they are not anarchists or libertarians, as they believe that order is necessary and a good.

To give a few examples of recent, more or less, conservatives, we have the following.  Probably, William F. Buckley is the supreme example of a post World War Two conservatives.  George F. Will would be a close second. George Weigel, must less well known, would be a third.

In terms of politicians, we have, currently, Mitt Romney.  Ronald Reagan was a conservative, but imperfectly so.  Margaret Thatcher was another.  Herbert Hoover, who was a much better President than he is credited as being, was a conservative.  Winston Churchill was a conservative, as was his nemesis Éamon de Valera.

To look at some illustrative issues, in the abstract, as politicians and individuals both vary and compromise, we'll take some more or less contemporary examples, and carry them through.

Abortion.  Conservatives oppose abortion as they believe in an external, and therefore don't have the right to destroy a human life without just cause.  This view, I'd note, is not limited to religious conservatives.

Death Penalty.  As a rule, conservatives have tended to support the death penalty, as it's always existed. They are clearly capable of having their minds changed on the topic, slowly.

Gender issues.  I'm lumping this all into one category, but conservatives as a rule feel that homosexuality is a person's own business, but it shouldn't change institutions like marriage.  They don't believe transgenderism is real, as the science isn't there.

Climate Change.  Early on a lot of conservatives were skeptical on climate change, but few would outright dismiss it.  Many were cautious in accepting it, however, consistent with their general reluctance to immediately accept something new.

Economics.  As a rule, conservatives tend to be in favor of a free market, with as little government interference in the economy as possible, basically taking the view that the best economy is one in which people get to decide things for themselves and that overall, the economy is really too complicated for human micromanaging.

Immigration.  Conservatives have been for restricted immigration, believing that excessive rates damage the economy, impact national culture too rapidly, and impact sovereignty.

Defense.  Conservatives are for a strong national defense, as they support sovereignty.  Prior to World War Two they were opposed to that extending overseas, but since the war they've applied the lessons of history and are very much in favor of extending defense beyond the seas, if not necessarily always intervening in foreign wars.  Two give to contemporary examples of this:

  • The Russo Ukrainian War.  Conservatives are for supplying aid, and a lot of it, to Ukraine as Russia is a demonstrated enemy of the West and if not addressed will have to be at some point.
  • Hamas Israeli War.  While conservatives were actually very reluctant to support Israel in 1948 when it became independent, they've come around to it as it's the only substantial democracy in the Middle East and, accordingly, they feel it should be given the ability to defend itself.

William F. Buckley, who intellectually defined the modern conservative movement.

What, then, are liberals?

What is a liberal?

Logo of the former British Liberal Party, with its color expressing its middle of the road nature.

We don't hear much about liberals anymore.  Progressives, which we will deal with below, have sort of taken over the political "left" in recent years, and liberalism, in a modern context, has weakened, which is a tragedy.

Liberals actually hold the essential core value that conservatives do, that being that there is an existential external that has set human nature. They believe, however, that human nature can be improved, and that it requires collective effort to do that.  Unlike conservatives, who hope we all do as well as we can, liberals feel that we can all be made better.  That's the real difference between traditional conservatives and traditional liberals.

Liberals see the world much the way that conservatives do, but have a very optimistic view of human nature and are certain that it can be improved. The early GOP was a liberal party and therefore, when you consider that, Lincoln appealing to "the better angels of our mercy" makes a lot of sense.  Conservatives would appeal to angels as well, but not "ours", and for help.

Because liberals believe that human nature can be improved, they see government, and the organs of government, as vehicles that can do it.  Therefore, liberals have a lot of faith in the organs of government to basically drag the mass along into an improved state, as they see it.

Right now, however, real liberals and real conservatives are few and far between. That's because we have populists and progressives dominating the field.

In most societies, liberals are the majority.  To some extent, that's because they are optimistic, and tend to believe they can make everything better than it currently is.

Looking at our issues, we have the following.

Abortion.  Liberals generally support allowing abortion up to a certain number of weeks, although this isn't universally true. The intellectual underpinning of this is weak, but is based on the concept that by doing this they're supporting the rights of women.

Death Penalty.  Liberals are pretty uniformly opposed to the death penalty, believing that it achieves no real purpose and is inherently barbaric.

Gender issues.  Liberals, like conservatives, generally used to hold that homosexuality was a person's own matter, if they were subject to it.  They've come to support regarding homosexuality as equating with heterosexuality in recent years on the belief that this improves the living standards of everyone.

Transgenderism is a new thing, but generally liberals lean towards supporting transgender "rights" on the concept that as it seems to occur, it must be natural, and society shouldn't hurt people who express it.

Climate Change.  Liberals fully accept that this is occurring and is a grave crisis, and they want governmental action on it.

Economics.  Contrary to what people like to imagine, conservatives and liberals really have very similar views of the economy.  The difference is really at the margin in how much governmental action there should be in the economy, and what the tax rates are.  If viewed from the abstract, however, tehir views are essentially the same.

Immigration.  Liberals generally believe that all people are the same or can be the same, so they dismiss cultural issues regarding immigration.  They are for controls, but having a desire to improve things for everyone, they're generally in support of a much higher immigration rate than conservatives.

Defense.  Traditionally, contrary to what people like to imagine, liberals have been in favor of a strong defense and also have been quite interventionist.  There are exceptions, but the "improve things for everyone" viewpoint resulted, throughout the 20th Century, in a much higher inclination by liberals to intervene in foreign wars than conservatives have had.  Since Vietnam, this has been much less the case, however.

  • The Russo Ukrainian War.  Liberals are very much in favor of aiding Ukraine for the same reason that conservatives are, and also as Ukraine leans towards the west in culture and values.
  • Hamas Israeli War.  Most real liberals support aiding Israel, as they've always had a strong desire to support the Jewish state since the end of World War Two.

In terms, again, of recent examples, Robert Reich, who teeters on the edge of progressivism, is one.  Bill Clinton was another.  Nancy Pelosi is another example, as is Chuck Schumer.  Going back a bit further, both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were liberals.  Frankly, Richard Nixon was as well.

A controversial example would be Theodore Roosevelt.  While his breakaway political party was The Progressives, he was a pretty far left political liberal, as was his cousin Franklin Roosevelt.

Franklin Roosevelt, arguably the most clearly Liberal of American Presidents.

What is a populist?

Emblem of the former Populist, or People's Party.

This has certainly been the Age of Populism.

Populists believe that the good is determined by the collective wisdom of the masses.  So unlike conservatism and liberalism which believe that an existential external had defined what human nature is, populists believe that the collective common sense of the people defines that, and that's an existential collective internal.

Because populists believe that, it's a particularly shallow political theory and particularly subject to the storms of the time.  Populist can be, and have been, on the radical "left" and the radical "right".  Indeed, when Trump was coming up in 2016 so was Bernie Sanders, and they both appealed equally to populists.  A lot of the same people who now worship Trump, worshiped Sanders.

Right now, people confuse populism with conservatism as populism in the US stands, as it often has in the past, for an Evangelical variant of the American Civil Religion.  Protestant in its view, it basically holds a very shallow version of Christianity which is mostly focused on sex, and mostly focused on homosexual sex being bad.  Beyond that, it longs, just as it had in the mid to late 20th Century in the South, for a mythic version of American history in which everyone supposedly did really well economically and there were no problems (no drugs, no alcoholics, no mentally ill, no violence, etc.).

Populism has been an occasionally strong current in the American political stream from time to time.  There was, at the turn of the prior century, a Populist Party that existed from 1892 until 1909, and which we should note did very well in Wyoming's elections of the period.  It was, we might note, regarded as a left wing party.

Populism is only popular in a society during times of extreme economic or social distress.  Massively pessimistic in its outlook, Populist always have the belief that they are under siege and are therefore extremely given to conspiracy theories of all type.  They are, accordingly, very easy to manipulate.  They also tend to be given to ignorance, which plays into this, as they believe folk wisdom is the ultimate source of knowledge on everything.  And what it says, is that they're swimming in the shallow end of the pool, quite frankly.

The strength of populists is mass.  They tend to be numerous, when conditions give rise to them.  They also tend to be extremely strong-willed in their beliefs, even fanatically so.

Indeed, that's a weakness.

More than any other group, populists are prone to raging hatred.  As their beliefs arise from a collective mass, anyone contesting them is regarded as a lunatic enemy of the people.  Populists are, therefore, highly prone to tribalism and fanaticism

An additional weakness is that they're highly prone to being led by others.  In Weimar Germany, for example, populists sentiments were heavily reflected in the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party, with some people whipping back and forth between the two.  Rank and file Nazis were essentially populists, even if the leaders were not. The same is true of rank and file Reds during the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War, as well as with the Greens.  Communism and Anarchy were mass movements as they were shallow, and made up of "common sense".

As this demonstrates, populists generally actually lack a philosophy, but don't realize it.  They "sense" or "feel" rather than think, and therefore are easily led by those who can tap into that.

A good example of how populist can be easily manipulated into something extreme.  We never "treated" viruses with soup, and we aren't treating them now with "communism".  But the anti-scientific anti-vax movement has attracted populist with the concept of a pass that looked like this, that never existed.

Because of this populists are very easily led by other movements, when a savvy leader comes along and can manipulate them.  And often, but not always, those leaders are quasi populists themselves. Both Lenin and Hitler were.  Franco was not.  Nor was Mussolini.  All were able to lead the masses.

Turning to our set of issues, we have the following.

Abortion.  This is actually hard to say as Populists vary on this to a fair degree.  They all, right now, oppose abortion, but are prepared to compromise on some vague number of weeks if for no other reason that makes it easy.

Death Penalty.  Populists are for it, as its always existed, and for its extension, as the people who get executed seem to be part of an evil "them".

Gender issues.  Populists are very much opposed to homosexuality and transgenderism as they sense its not party of the collective norm.  They share this view with Conservatives, but tend to be nasty and virulent about it, rather than thoughtful.

Climate Change.  Populists just don't believe its real.  The collective group of them doesn't, and therefore individual ones don't, evidence to the contrary aside.  As populists engage in a sort of group think, that's what they think.

Economics.  Populists say they are for a free market economy but have no real understanding of economic issues. They're for protectionism as that protects us against a foreign them.

Immigration.  Populists are radically opposed to immigration as the people who come in are part of a foreign them, and are not part of us. They believe that immigration problems are the result, in some instances, of a conspiracy.

Defense.  Populists support our troops, but appear to have the old William Jennings Bryan view of things, and he was a populist, that troops shouldn't leave our shores.  They are radically opposed to intervention in any war overseas in the belief that none of them matter to us, almost.

  • The Russo Ukrainian War.  Populist oppose aiding Ukraine.  Being prone to be led around, some of them oppose the war as Donald Trump is a fan of Putin, and therefore they are too.  Others oppose it as its overseas and they don't think it matters.
  • Hamas Israeli War.  Populist are oddly in favor of Israel, which is contrary to their general political alignment. This is for an odd reason, which is that a lot of populists are Evangelical Christians who have an apocalyptic view of the Jewish state, so they tend to believe that God has commanded us to support Israel.

Giving really outstanding example of populists is a bit hard to do, to some extent, as they tend to fail over time, and then be forgotten.  But there are some notable examples.  Louisiana's Huey Long was a populist.  Fr. Charles Coughlin was as well.  George Wallace was for much of his life, but he became a conservative in his final years.  

Huey P. Long, Depression Era populist.

What is a progressive.

Poster of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party.

Like populism, progressivism has existed in the United States for a long time, and perhaps just about as long as populism.

Progressives believe, like populists, that human nature is controlled by an internal existential, but in their case they radically believe that it's controlled by an internal individual existential.  So, unlike progressives who believe in a sort of mystical will of the people, progressives believe that each and every individual has a radically individual reality that's a supreme existential good.  

Progressives are convinced of radical individualism while at the same time having very low faith in people in general.

Because of their world outlook, progressives tend to share some odd traits with populists, and indeed historically they are both left wing in their political, and they tend to exist at the same time.  Progressives tend to be radically opposed to human nature, and therefore given to conspiracy theories of a type.  They tend to be anarchic in their expressed views, just as populists tend to be, but they favor autocracy in reality, just as populists ultimately tend to be.  Societies that essentially degrade to a struggle between populism and progressivism, usually spectacularly fail, with late Republican Spain and late Weimar Germany being distressing examples.

In terms of Progressives, for reasons that we'll explain below, popular examples are often associated with other movements.  Having said that, figures like Noam Chomsky, AoC, Henry Wallace, are good examples.  Much of current academia, for peculiar reasons, is made up of Progressives.  There aren't, however, any countries current governed by them, unlike Populists.  

Progressives in recent decades have tended to lurk under the surface of liberals, so they don't erupt into existence the way Populists do.  Being opportunistic, however, they've done so very much since the Obergefell decision, and then in reaction to Trump.

On our issues, we find the following:

Abortion.  Progressives are radically in favor of abortion as they are radically in favor of any one human deciding their own fate, and the fate of an unborn person doesn't matter, as they are not yet born.

Death Penalty.  Progressives are opposed to it, but mostly on a knee-jerk level. This is borrowed from the Liberals, and it's been adopted without much thinking.  Having said that, termination of a life does radically end that person's ability to decide anything, so this is overall consistent with their views.

Gender issues.  Progressives believe that this can and should be radically determined by the individuals, so basically they don't really believe that genders, science notwithstanding, really exist.

Climate Change.  Climate Change impacts everyone, so Progressives are for immediate government action to address it.

Economics.  Progressives lean towards radical economics, so concepts like Universal Basic Income and whatnot, that seem to be capable of individual use, are heavily favored. They like state intervention in the economy and society, to the extent it seems to free up anyone individual.

Immigration.  Progressives, like liberals, don't believe that culture really matters, so they're heavily opposed to restrictions of significance.

Defense.  Prior to the recent wars it would have been hard to say what a Progressive position was on defense, other than that Progressives like to use the Armed Forces as a petrie dish for social change.  Given the various world crises right now, however, things have become clearer.

  • The Russo Ukrainian War.  Progressives favor aiding Ukraine as Ukraine is a western nation in culture, and Russia is not.
  • Hamas Israeli War.  Progressives want the war to end, as probably everybody does, but have an odd belief that we can decree this to be so.  Younger Progressives tend to support Hamas as it seems like it involves the rights of more people than the Israeli cause does.  Not really believing in anything externally existential, the rapes and murders committed by Hamas don't really matter to them.

Robert LaFollette, Progressive of the early 20th Century.

How these categories bleed into each other, creating confusion.

In no small part due to the adoption of the French Revolution "right wing/left wing" political map, we tend to think of all political categories as existing as a scaled line, when in fact their world more closely resembles a box, or perhaps intersecting circles. This confuses people in general, including those who fit any one category.  For example, a lot of populists right now genuinely believe that they are conservatives, when in fact they are anything but.  Put another way, a lot of members of the Freedom Caucus would actually feel a lot more comfortable at a Bernie Sanders Coffee Klatch than they would at a William F. Buckley Society cocktail party, and by leagues.

To start with conservatives again, as conservatives apply Chesterton's Fence to all sorts of things as a philosophical principle, they may see populists who arise due to social stress as members of the same group.  To give an example, conservatives are rightly horrified by the gender nonsense that's going on right now, and more than that look back to male/female social roles that seem more solidly grounded in an existential other.  Populists take the same outward approach, but that's because the collective mass of them tells them that what is going on is weird.  Conservatives tend to support strong border and immigration policies as they believe in the principal of sovereignty, which has long existed, and they fear they value national culture and fear that uncontrolled immigration can damage it.  Populists tend to support the same, but because the people coming across the border are part of some mysterious other, who are almost not real people, or at least not equal people.

On other issues, however the differences begin to become more apparent.  Conservatives have always tended to support a strong national defense on sovereignty grounds, although that doesn't always take the same expression. Therefore, while conservatives of the 1930s were isolationist, they were also more than willing to build a strong Navy that projected power well beyond the United States.  In recent years, they've been strong proponents of collective security, often aggravating liberals by being willing to see authoritarian regimes as potential defense partners.  Populists are universally strict isolationist, as they feel anything beyond our borders doesn't matter.

Economically, conservatives generally tend to be fiscally restrained, but not unwilling to apply the American system where it will seem to work.  They believe in balanced finances.  Populists believe in balanced finances, but take a hyper stingy view of expenditures, virtually never seeing any expenditure as benefiting the populist mass. Therefore, funding for schools, something conservatives have long supported, becomes sort of an anathema to some populists.  Strong education in science, math and history as a conservative position degrades into limited education on the populist end, as they have watched populist raised children evolve into conservatives, liberals or progressives.

Western conservatives (but not European conservatives) had tended to be in favor of limiting government, as they basically feel, in a pessimistic sort of way, that people are generally better off figuring out things for themselves rather than having the government do it, or do things for them.  Populists are for a limited government as they hate the government, seeing it as the conspiratorial "they" that's out to destroy them and the culture they believe in.

For this reason, conservatives and populists confuse each other as being part of their ranks.  Populists continually claim they are conservatives, when in fact they are not.  Populists have been told that the Republican Party is the home of conservatives, which after 1912 it came to be, and as they believe that they are conservative, they believe anyone in the GOP who doesn't think the way they do is a Republican In Name Only.  Ironically, populists were in the Populist Party at the turn of the last century in the US, and then in the Democratic Party for decades.  What they are complaining about is the traditional positions of the Republican Party.

The same is true of liberals and progressives.

Liberals tend to be basically in favor of social liberty for the same reason that conservatives are in favor of limited government, they feel that people are best left to figure those things out for themselves and will ultimately figure the right thing out.  Progressives want to force a brave new social world view on everyone.  Liberals are more willing to use the government and government money for what they think the common good is than conservatives are, but progressives are willing to use both to force their view on what the good is on people who disagree with it.  Liberals (like many conservatives) are supportive of preservation of the common good, through public and environmental policies.  Progressives are as well, but they're more much willing to dictate an extra view on how people should generally behave.  Liberals, like conservatives, have traditionally been in favor of a strong national defense, but have been, since the Vietnam War, very careful about using it beyond our shores unless absolutely necessary.  Progressives, like populists, never see it as necessary as a rule.

Because liberals and progressives overlap, they confuse each other as being on the same scale on the left, which in fact, they're in different circles or boxes.  Liberal inability to see the distinction has been to the benefit of Progressives, who have come to increasingly dominate the Democratic Party in recent years.

Liberals and conservatives tend to have a lot in common, but not be able to realize it, in part because liberals feel they need to make camp with the progressives, and the conservatives do make camp with the progressives.

A warning

And here we get, in a way, to where we are now.

Conservatives in the modern West, and always in the English-speaking West, have democracy as a primary virtue, in spite of being aware that they're never in the majority, although the National Conservative movement, which is reactionary in the true sense of the word (it's reacting to something) is weakening that and looking to a pre Second World War model of European conservatism.

Liberals are always in favor of democracy.

Progressives and Populists really aren't quite often. Sometimes they are, but often they are not.

And Progressives and Populists only are in the forefront of politics in odd, and dangerous, times.

We are in odd and dangerous times.

Footnotes:

1.  Hindu conservatives, and there are millions, would say "gods", or some variant of it, we should note.

2. Evolutionary biology is almost an elemental fixture of conservatism.  Indeed, scientists who are evolutioanry biologist have been rebuked, in recent years, by progressives simply for stating scientific truths.