re: Vance Disparages Friedman, Reagan

quote:

---

Vance is a shapeshifter.

I have no idea what he really believes in

---

There was pre-politics Vance

Political Vance until he became Trump's VP

VP Vance until Rubio became the leader of the Post-Trump MAGA Power Rankings™

VP Vance post Rubio becoming the leader of the Post-Trump MAGA Power Rankings™

I would be shocked, but he's on his like 6th name so I'm not.

quote:

---

intellectual lightweight

---

That would be a mistaken assumption. But SFP is right, he looks like a shapeshifter.

quote:

---

Jeremy boreing made the same critique of Vance recently and said that’s why he feels Rubio is 2028 front runner

---

Then you've got two shapeshifters as front runners.

quote:

---

Who disparages Friedman -- Reagan's favorite economist and perhaps the most ardent spokesman for free markets since Adam Smith? Friedman was the leading spokesman for school choice, limited government and personal freedom. One of his most famous books was called "Free to Choose." Who criticizes Thatcher?

---

The first question that should be asked after reading this is, "Why does the author think that disagreeing with Friedman is 'disparaging' him or that Thatcher is beyond criticism?"

The author is shifting the argument from policy to people to create an emotional attachment. Any criticism of a policy now becomes a criticism of that individual, who is beyond reproach in all things, or so the author wants you to believe.

The author is pushing a narrative using emotions rather than hard data. When that happens, it's always prudent to distrust the author until the facts can be verified.

But it doesn't look like there are many facts beyond generalities. It's basically just, "Vance is wrong because he agrees with that guy and not the guy I do. Oh, and you can't question my guy."

quote:

---

"I think that meritocracy can steal from us a sense of what really, really matters."

---

This was clearly cut from all surrounding context in the interview and placed in the middle of the article. Closing quotation marks signal that this quote and the quote directly before and after are individual quotes, not continuations of an argument.

Why did the author put in a controversial statement without providing the context around it? Would that context change the narrative being pushed? If it strengthened the author's argument, then surely it would have been added.

quote:

---

"If you turn economic development (i.e., prosperity) into a sort of idol, then you end up sacrificing a lot of the things that matter most."

---

This is true, but people on the right instinctively recoil when they hear criticism of a foundational principle of their beliefs like unfettered capitalism.

Vance is absolutely right here. Blind pursuit of economic development causes offshoring of manufacturing, a dependence on foreign adversaries, and a flood of cheap labor who destroy our culture and lower wages.

This is the GOPe vs MAGA argument, but the author wants you to think that putting American workers over the corporations is the GOPe position. It's the RINOs who have sold out the country for economic development, not the ones saying there might be things of value beyond profits.

Did Vance actually say 'i.e., prosperity' or is that the author's embellishment? Because economic development and prosperity are not the time. CEOS have made money exponentially through the 2 methods mentioned above at the cost of the American workers.

If 90% of economic growth benefits only a handful of people, can you really call that prosperity? If the majority of families are living paycheck to paycheck, is that prospering or simply subsisting?

quote:

---

 If Vance doesn't believe in those core principles of freedom and prosperity, maybe he's in the wrong party.

---

Look at this drama queen. More proof the author is simply trying to play on emotions instead of providing actual counterarguments. Nothing Vance said in the quoted snippets violates core principles of freedom and prosperity.

I see this all the time. "If you disagree with me, then you aren't a true conservative." The author is making the same basic argument. The author wants readers to think that if someone believes in a slightly different way to achieve the core principles than he does, then he just doesn't believe in those principles at all.

The author may ultimately be correct, but his presentation is very unconvincing.

I trust Friedman more than Vance. Also Reagan over Vance. Vance has moved his opinions on things and this seems to be leaning away from conservative economic policy. Something the GOP has been doing greatly the last 25 years. It's not a good thing. Socialism has taken root and if you don't see it, you are blind.

quote:

---

Vance is a shapeshifter.

I have no idea what he really believes in

---

Like Rubio.

I see DeSantis actually doing work, not talking like those two.

quote:

---

Vance Disparages Friedman, Reagan

---

Hard truth. Trump is better than Reagan ever was on his best day, and I even liked Reagan. Vance has the chance to be even better than Trump.

Reagan was a legend for his time but now, that was like dinosaur ages ago.

Vance also said in another interview the Nixon coalition was stronger than the Reagan coalition. Huh?

Reagan actually put conservatives on the Court. Reagan had coattails in elections. Brought a Republican Senate that lasted at least one term. His economic performance was so strong that Bush got elected. He didn't get. us into wars except Grenada and that was justified. We got in and got out real quick.

Nixon was great for starting democrat programs. Look at how many of his cabinet secretaries worked for Carter.

quote:

---

move on from Reagan. his brand of "conservatism" was a disaster to America.

---

Could you please elaborate.

quote:

---

Margaret Thatcher, an amazing human being

---

he lost all credibility with me there