| − | # Yes, social conservatism is objectively preferable to moral degeneracy, though one needs to understand how it goes both ways: in a moral society, social conservatism is a necessary bulwark, while an immoral society can utilize it to hold together and fuel a sinister system. | + | # Yes, social conservatism is objectively preferable to moral degeneracy, though one needs to understand how it goes both ways: in a moral society, social conservatism is a necessary bulwark to hold together basic standards, while an immoral society can utilize it to hold together and fuel a sinister system. |
| | # More job-friendly? That in of itself has nothing wrong, though how it is portrayed and what agenda it serves matters. Both "right-wing populists" and old-school Communists are working-class populist agitators, left-wing nationalists (as opposed to right-wing "bourgeois" nationalism), and nativists who think that the "outsiders" don't belong. | | # More job-friendly? That in of itself has nothing wrong, though how it is portrayed and what agenda it serves matters. Both "right-wing populists" and old-school Communists are working-class populist agitators, left-wing nationalists (as opposed to right-wing "bourgeois" nationalism), and nativists who think that the "outsiders" don't belong. |
| | # On the issue of free trade vs. protectionism, fitting that into a left–right framework is tricky in objective terms because of how the very political spectrum changed in the late 1960s–80s; protectionism was once associated with the politics of right-wing "standpat" Republicans, though rejected by the eventual "New Right." However, even in the old days, protectionism wasn't necessarily right-wing—it was conservative when used to benefit the big business interests, and left-wing when a part of socialist, populistic working-class sentiments. The [[Liberal Republican Party]] nominee of [[United States presidential election, 1872|1872]], [[Horace Greeley]], was strongly protectionist, yet also a socialist. Conclusion: Trump's protectionism, fitting a framework of working-class populism, actually represents old-school left-wing ideals from a historically grounded perspective. | | # On the issue of free trade vs. protectionism, fitting that into a left–right framework is tricky in objective terms because of how the very political spectrum changed in the late 1960s–80s; protectionism was once associated with the politics of right-wing "standpat" Republicans, though rejected by the eventual "New Right." However, even in the old days, protectionism wasn't necessarily right-wing—it was conservative when used to benefit the big business interests, and left-wing when a part of socialist, populistic working-class sentiments. The [[Liberal Republican Party]] nominee of [[United States presidential election, 1872|1872]], [[Horace Greeley]], was strongly protectionist, yet also a socialist. Conclusion: Trump's protectionism, fitting a framework of working-class populism, actually represents old-school left-wing ideals from a historically grounded perspective. |