Trumprally
Is Trump Reagan Or Goldwater? Either Way, He’s Blazed The Trail—But GOP Elite Still Not Listening
Thumb peterbrimelow
August 09, 2016, 05:40 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow writes: Below is a transcription of my Monday morning interview with Steve Curtis of KLZ560, with added links.

https://soundcloud.com/wake-up-with-steve-curtis/08082016-peter-brimelow-vdare

Steve Curtis: I don’t know what took me so long—this morning, I just got my download of On Trump.

Peter Brimelow: Oh, yes, our collection of essays on Donald Trump. We’ve been following Trump for a long time. It’s a free download on VDARE.com. It’s been very successful. There are a lot of people out there who want to hear about Trump.

Basically, this election is a war between the Main Stream Media and the social media, the internet.

SC: I think you are absolutely right. The MSM is just lock, stock, and barrel against Trump.

PB: Are you old enough to remember Goldwater in 1964? I was in England at the time, of course, but this very similar to what the media did to Goldwater, even right down to having key Republican operatives jump ship and begin working for the other side.

They also tried it with Reagan in 1980. We forget now, but there was a tremendous push against Reagan from the Establishment and John Anderson, who was a Republican congressman, actually did run as a Third Party candidate. He did quite well, actually, he got 6.6% of the vote.

So we’ve been here before. Trump is Reagan or Goldwater; we just don’t know which yet. But Goldwater, of course blazed a trail that brought the Republicans to power at the presidential level for most of the next 30 years.

Goldwater_for_President

SC: I can remember, barely, the Goldwater election. I remember my dad actually having pencils that said “Goldwater for President” on them. And Mitt Romney’s dad conspired against Goldwater.

PB: He was Governor of Michigan. The apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree in that family. Here’s Mitt Romney treacherously trying to undercut Trump in this election 40 years later—Good Lord, it’s more like 50 years later! [Laughter]

As you know, I’m talking to you from New England. You mentioned Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire when you were talking about Trump’s endorsements—she’s particularly interesting to us at VDARE.com because she ran, in a very quiet way, as an immigration patriot. And that caused her to win in New Hampshire—then she immediately switched sides and came out in favor of the Gang of Eight Amnesty. Which of course failed. It was a stupid move, but that’s what all the donors and consultants told her to do. So now she is in a very tight race, she’s behind, and she deserves to be behind.

One of the most interesting things that Trump has done, you know, is he that hasn’t given up on immigration patriotism. He went up to Maine and gave a speech on Thursday that was excellent on immigration. [Donald Trump now says even legal immigrants are a security threat, By Jenna Johnson, Washington Post, August 5, 2016]. It wasn’t widely reported.

The only thing the MSM reported was that protestors held up copies of the U.S. Constitution and were booed. Because, of course, the Left has convinced themselves that mass immigration is somewhere in the Constitution. Well, of course, it isn’t.

But he went through a lot of stuff about immigration in that speech, and specifically raised the issue of the refugee racket.

Basically, the U.S. government has awarded itself the power to plant garrisons of Muslim refugees all over the country, regardless of what the local communities want. In Maine, of course, they’ve basically turned Lewiston into a with Somali refugees.

The only way you can tell what Trump actually said, if you look at the MSM—it’s like reading Pravda in the Soviet Union, you have to reinterpret it—is, there’s a great flood of stories saying Somalis were upset because Trump was criticizing them, and various local politicians and the Portland Press Herald Editorial Board were upset because of his comments on Somalis, etc. They even found one case of a Somali who is going off to the National Guard. And he was upset! [Donald Trump's comments about Minnesota Somalis met with outrage, By Mila Koumpilova Star Tribune, August 7, 2016]

But the fact is that this immigration has converted these places, not just in Maine but in Minnesota, into hellholes. And Americans know that on the ground.

So, as long as Trump keeps working away on this issue, as long as he gets the word out through alternative media, then he’s going to win.

SC: You can really see the way the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the same, with George Will sitting on Fox acting as if he was on Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. Win, lose, or draw in the November election, I think the Republican Establishment really doesn’t have a base. Their base is the MSM; that’s about it.

PB: Well, that’s exactly right. Peggy Noonan wrote a Wall Street Journal column, critical of Trump, but she said

From what I've seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base's views differ from theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.

[The Week They Decided Donald Trump Was Crazy, August 4, 2016]

I mean, you would think they would be asking themselves: “Dear me, it feels like I just got hit by a truck. This man just came in and took our party away from us. But how was he able to do that? Maybe he was talking about things that our base actually wants to hear.”

But, there is no talk of that at all. They are just hoping that they can sabotage him.

There’s an article this morning by Sean Trende this morning on Real Clear Politics discussing the polls and he says that there are cases of people coming back from this level [Can Trump Come Back?  August 8, 2016]. He thinks that the averages suggest that Trump will lose, but not worse than Romney. But he still thinks there is a possibility that he may win.

SC: I think it’s very possible. But he’s going to have to buy airtime to get his message out, because even on Fox, outside of Sean Hannity, everybody else is talking around his message and distorting it.

PB: Well, we’ve seen a couple of things in the last week that are clearly good for him. One of them is that he continues to get the enormous crowds. We ran an article earlier this week about how Jared Taylor tried to get into one of his rallies in Northern Virginia, which is supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s country, and couldn’t get in. There were just thousands and thousands of people in 95-degree heat waiting for Trump.

The second point: Trump is actually raising a lot of money—but it’s from small donors. It’s reached the point where I actually saw a headline this morning where the Democrats are actually worried about it [Trump fundraising sets off Clinton camp alarms, Politico, August 8, 2016].

Trump has shown that you don’t need money to win elections—you need ideas. That’s exactly why there are so many Republican operatives upset at him—because many of them make their living off of running these elections, even if they lose.

SC: Peter, I want to talk about the jobs report that just came out, which Wall Street liked and the Obama administration is kind of thumping their chest, “Look at us after eight years, we finally get a nice looking jobs report.”

PB: You are quite right, of course. I think the Obama Administration is the only one that has not shown a year-over-year GDP growth above 3%. It’s very weak recovery.

But what we do at VDARE.com is that my old friend, Ed Rubenstein, analyzes the job data every month to find out the unspoken number—what proportion new jobs are going to immigrants.

In the last jobs report which came out Friday [August 5, 2016], about half of the job growth went to immigrants. If you look at the whole of the Obama administration, immigrant employment has gone up about 19%, but native-born American employment has gone up only about 4%. So, basically, immigrant employment has risen nearly five times faster during the Obama Administration than has native-born American employment.

In other words, Ed calculated it that we have about 3 million Americans who don’t have jobs because of immigration—who have been displaced.

That’s not counting, by the way, the US-born children of immigrants. This immigration inflow has been going on now since the 1965 Immigration Act, so many of them have children and even grandchildren who came in who are now in the workforce. We estimate that virtually doubles the immigration impact.

If there had been no immigration since 1965, there would be a much tighter labor market and we wouldn’t have seen the wage stagnation that Americans have been going through since about 1970. Which, of course, explains the volatility of the political situation—not just Trump, but also Sanders.

SC: It was always interesting hearing Bernie Sanders giving, and sometimes in more articulate way, Donald Trump’s stump speech when it came to immigration and protecting American jobs.

PB: Yeah, but that all came to a screeching halt when the primaries started. Early on in this campaign season, Sanders actually told one of the Leftist outlets that he wasn’t in favor of Open Borders immigration, that’s the Koch brothers situation—the famous Libertarian oil billionaires, who give a lot of money to Paul Ryan and so on. And he was exactly right.

And that caused hysteria on the Left, because the modern Left is not interested in the working class, white or black. They are interested in various ethnic agendas of their own. They want to transform America because they believe that will bring the Left to power permanently. They don’t want anything to get in the way of that.

And Sanders backed down. In the end, he was talking in favor of Open Borders and in favor of not enforcing the law and not deporting people, and so on and so forth, which has become the standard Democratic position.

The Democrats have moved a long way to the Left on immigration—unnoticed by the MSM.

Four years ago, in their platform, they were referring to “undocumented immigrants”—in other words, illegal aliens. We used to complain about that, because they were lying. These people haven’t just lost their passport—they never had a right to be here.

But now they don’t even refer to them as “undocumented immigrants”—the new platform just refers to “immigrants.” It doesn’t make a distinction between illegal immigrants and immigrants at all.

The Democrats have moved a long way to the Left on immigration. And I think that’s why Trump has a lot of power left in this race—if he keeps hammering them on the issue.

SC: That state-by-state map you posted on VDARE.com is interesting. We’re always being told that immigrants are taking jobs that Americans won’t do. But in several states, especially up in the North Central part of the country, it’s college teachers and so on. Wait a minute. College professors?

PB: Yes, in four states, the most commonly-held immigrant profession is college professor. In Delaware, it’s software developer!

This map actually came from VOX, a Leftist site that occasionally runs interesting things. Of course, they think this is just great; they want to see more immigrants. They didn’t realize the use to which we’d put this map!

SC: It’s just stunning.

PB: You know, one of the first articles VDARE.com ran, back in 2000, pointed out that this great wave of illegal immigration completely stopped technical innovation in Agribusiness. There was a lot of technical innovation going on, they were finding machines that picked plants, machines that would weed. And it simply stopped when this great influx of illegal immigration began in the early ‘70s—because the Ag bosses decided that they didn’t have to invest the money.

And one of the reasons, of course, is that the full cost of these immigrant farm workers is not born by the employer. If they get injured, they go to the Emergency Room. Their kids get free education. If their kids are American-born, they get all kinds of free things. So what these Agribusinesses are trying to do is privatize profits and socialize costs.

I was told by a financial analyst who follows the chicken business that he’d to a presentation by one of the poultry factory farmers, and the guy quite calmly said, “Well, we’re now moving towards mechanizing our production reserves because we think it’s going to more difficult to get illegal immigrants to do the job in the future.”

These are things they can do. They just don’t want to spend the money.

SC: And we are to believe that, if Donald Trump is elected, he will start a currency war, a trade war—as if they are not already happening.

PB: It’s like the Goldwater campaign, when they claimed he was going to blow up the world. Carter tried the same argument against Reagan in 1980.

But now we’re simply not in that situation—head-to-head with the Soviet Union, with a constant threat of nuclear war. In any case, Trump has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn’t want to get involved in foreign wars. Unlike Hillary who has already been involved in foreign wars.

The argument doesn’t make any sense anyway. The American presidency is an inherently very weak office. It’s not like being the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system. If Trump gets in, it’s not clear who is going to control the legislative branch, and he’ll have the entire bureaucracy that doesn’t want to do anything.

I believe it’s important that he win and that he can do a lot, but he won’t have a completely free hand. He’s not going to be able to go mad.

SC: We have Brad from East LA. Good morning, Brad.

Brad: Good morning! I was wanting to ask your guest, do you believe our subsidies, welfare, subsidizing energy and all these other things that we subsidize, is that going to kill us?

PB: That’s a more traditional question than I usually hear! As I said, I’ve been a financial journalist for nearly 40 years. Generally speaking, economists oppose subsidies and oppose special interest deals and prefer the free market.

On the other hand, I’m not sure if right now that the Republicans should focus on cutting Medicaid and Medicare, which is what Paul Ryan wants to do. I’m not sure that’s really going to work. I think people are really fed up and they don’t want to see the government doing things that take away the few benefits that they actually have.

Trump is giving a speech on the economy in Detroit today, for example, and apparently he’s going to propose a tax deduction for childcare, because he knows child care is going to be a big issue. The Democrats are aware of it too, but they haven’t moved as quickly as he has.

Now, most “conservative” economists will be against that, because it complicates the tax code. But Trump is not an ideologue. He’s prepared to provide that tax subsidy for working people because he thinks they need help.

It seems to me a tax credit makes more sense than a tax-deduction, because a lot of people don’t make that much money so a deduction isn’t worth that much to them, but a credit is worth something.

I would say the same about education. We should give people tax credits for private schools and break up the government school monopoly.

But this is a long way from immigration, Steve!

SC: That meeting Hillary had with black and Hispanic journalists—if she had a whites-only journalistic encounter, we’d never hear the end of it! But I didn’t hear anything about this meeting in the Main Stream Media.

PB: Clinton is openly going to what we call at VDARE.com the “Full Merkel”—they are going to Amnesty over 20 million illegals, which the bipartisan Establishment has been trying to do for 15 years and has failed because of grassroots opposition. And she also going to stop deporting illegals once they get in, so that’s an open invitation for more to come in. And, of course, they are going to increase legal immigration in various ways that the big donors want.

So, it’s very like what happened with Angela Merkel in Germany, where she just suddenly threw open the borders and let in nearly a million Muslim refugees—which were really economic immigrants of course.

One reason this hasn’t been reported that the headlines were about Clinton’s inability to answer a question about her email server that, to the journalists’ credit, they asked her. She is very vulnerable on that issue. That’s why she doesn’t give press conferences; this was her first press this year.

The other reason: they headlined it as Clinton promises immigration reform if Hispanics help win Senate”. [Fox News Latino, August 05, 2016]

That’s the agreed-on euphemism that the MSM uses for an Amnesty/ Immigration surge. They call it “immigration reform” because they discovered, of course, that you can’t sell Amnesty to the American people—so you have to lie about what it is. People don’t really notice what she is talking about.

SC: She can’t talk about immigration out in the open. But it is amazing these days what the Democrats are doing right out in the open.

PB: Well, you know, Trump’s instincts are right, of course. For example, this guy Khizr Khan was simply lying. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that precludes building a wall or restricting any class of immigrants.

The Democrats have just convinced themselves that the Constitution means whatever they think it ought to mean. And, of course, that’s actually how Democratic judges do behave. That’s how Ruth Bader Ginsburg behaves on the Supreme Court.

I do think that, sooner or later, we are going to see an immense clash between the American people and their elected officials, on the one hand, and what we call the kritarchy, judges making up the law, on the other.

The Democrats have gotten themselves in a situation which if you criticizes anybody in a certain class, then that’s an -ism. Or an -ogyny. If you criticize Hillary Clinton, then you are being misogynistic. Any criticism of any woman is misogynistic. Any criticism of any immigrant of color is racism.

So they can say what they want, and they’ve pretty much got Republicans cowering.

But Trump is not a coward. It gets him into trouble, but then again, that’s why he’s the nominee.

SC: Right, that’s exactly why he is the nominee.

The topic is immigration, both legal and illegal. You brought up Angela Merkel earlier. Do you get what’s going on there?

PB: I really don’t get it because the security situation on the ground in Germany is going to become impossible. We saw Cologne Cathedral on New Year’s Eve. Then you have Sweden—it has the highest rape rate in the world right now. It used to be completely safe. And that’s entirely because of Muslim immigration.

I don’t see any political rationale for what Merkel is doing because she’s not actually in the Left Wing party; she’s in the sort of Republican Party of Germany. I guess you could compare it to what George W. Bush was trying to do by legalizing all these Hispanic immigrants. They had some sort of theory that it was going to help them (or at least the Bush family).

But I don’t think it’s that; I think it’s a completely short-term thing. I think money has changed hands. I think Angela Merkel is angling to be Secretary General of the UN or something like that. I think she’s solely interested in her career, her personal advancement, and she thinks she’s going to become a member of the globalist elite.

You know, Tony Blair did a very similar thing after he became British Prime Minister in 1997. He used executive powers to throw open Britain’s borders and there was a tremendous influx of immigration, the greatest into Britain in recorded history.

And Blair has been going around the world; he’s a multimillionaire now and he sits on all kinds of boards. He has a foundation, just like the Clinton Foundation. These people do very well. I don’t think you really have to look any further than that. It’s bribery. They’re bribed.

SC: It’s amazing to watch the political class of Europe and in the U.S. find that same track of getting into public office and turning it into extremely well-paying lifetime careers.

PB: This is one of the amazing things about Trump. People think that he’s not intellectual. But he’s actually running a very high-concept campaign. He’s put in forward some really big, radical ideas. For example, he said in his acceptance speech that he’s not a globalist, he’s a nationalist. That’s the key to his campaign and the key to his appeal. So he’s broken with the consensus right across the political spectrum, from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, in favor of globalism. And, as it turns out, the Republican Party’s base agrees.

SC: That makes the Washington Establishment nervous.

PB: But they won’t back off. I see the former GOP governor of Michigan, William Milliken, just endorsed Clinton today.

Trump has been trying to appease the Establishment for several months now. That’s why he chose Mike Pence as VP, although he’s a turncoat. He let Ted Cruz speak at the convention, even though he knew he wasn’t going to endorse him. He endorsed Ryan, etc.

I don’t think it did him any good. I think it’s going to come to an end. I think Trump will decide that there’s no point in this anymore.

The Republican leadership just don’t want to hear. Remember how they put Dave Brat down the memory hole. It makes no difference to them if Paul Ryan loses or not.

They are just not listening. They deserve Trump.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.