MAGA populists speak for ‘the people,’ but what does that mean?
For years, I’ve listened to Republican talk show hosts and politicians claim that the American “people” are profoundly conservative. These phrases appear whenever they defend “the right of the unborn,” call for closing the borders, or demand we stop the flow of fentanyl. They stand their ground, explaining, “The people demand it.”Just last week, Roger Kimball lamented the “legitimacy draining out of our governing institutions” and argued that the solution lies in turning our focus away from Washington and toward “the real source of legitimacy, which is with the people.”There is indeed a 'basket of deplorables,' though not in the sense Hillary Clinton meant. The real deplorables are 'the others.'Kimball’s reference draws from the framers of the American Constitution, who viewed power as ultimately residing with “the people.” But that was then, and now is now. In 1787, it was clear who "the people" were: Christians, regular Bible-readers, mostly property-owners, and people capable of local self-governance.Today, the concept of “the people” is far less clear. With an estimated 346 million people living within our borders and the influx of illegal immigrants actively promoted by Democrats for cheap labor and votes, it’s nearly impossible to determine who actually resides in the United States.About half of our likely voters intend to vote for Kamala Harris, a presidential candidate who has been largely responsible for our open borders and for the fact that 15,811 of the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens she and her party have welcomed into our midst have turned out to be serial rapists. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 662,556 of our undocumented residents, most of whom the Democrats have ecstatically welcomed, are convicted criminals. Moreover, in national polls, Harris and her party are only trailing Trump by about 13 points when respondents are asked about the candidates’ ability to address the immigration crisis.Harris leads Trump by 19 points on the abortion issue, pushing for a nationwide, unrestricted abortion right. To achieve this, she is willing to remove the Senate filibuster if necessary. This expanded right would include the ability to abort infants who survive late-term procedures — legislation her running mate, Tim Walz, already enacted as governor of Minnesota.Harris and her party also support the right to perform gender-affirming surgeries on minors, which involves genital mutilation, and allow males who claim to be female to use women's facilities and compete in girls' sports. Should we assume that half of the electorate, who support these practices, represent “the people”? If not, why?Politicians and journalists on the right may invoke the magic phrase “the people,” though they rarely specify whom they exclude from that definition. They likely hope their audience will respond to the term’s familiar sound, feeling an affinity for politicians who use it. However, we shouldn’t expect today’s populists to match the exalted tone George Washington used when appealing to “the people.”In his June 1783 circular to the states, Washington emphasized the piety and biblical virtues he believed were essential for “a happy nation.” Unlike today’s Republican politicians, Washington knew exactly who “the people” were, and their veneration for him was well-deserved.William F. Buckley Jr. is reputed to have said about Willmoore Kendall, his Yale professor and a defender of populism: “He would have preferred to be ruled by the first 2000 residents listed in the New Haven telephone directory rather than by the faculty of Yale.” As someone driven out of the Yale faculty 60 years ago, one can understand Kendall’s feelings toward his former colleagues.But even more relevant is what Kendall was saying about his own populism. Those who invoke “the people” usually have certain people in mind but not others. And from Kendall’s distinctions, it would appear that his fellow academics didn’t rate high among those who belonged to his “people.”Let me offer my own advice about defining “the people.” We should definitely exclude anyone planning to vote for the Democratic Party this fall. I can't imagine anyone but a moral lunatic or hopeless ignoramus making that terrible choice.There is indeed a “basket of deplorables,” though not in the sense Hillary Clinton meant. The real deplorables are “the others” — those who don’t care about subverting and denaturing what’s left of our constitutional republic.Maybe someday MAGA politicians will tell us that they represent the kind of people Washington had in mind when he spoke of “the people”: patriotic, God-fearing citizens.
For years, I’ve listened to Republican talk show hosts and politicians claim that the American “people” are profoundly conservative. These phrases appear whenever they defend “the right of the unborn,” call for closing the borders, or demand we stop the flow of fentanyl. They stand their ground, explaining, “The people demand it.”
Just last week, Roger Kimball lamented the “legitimacy draining out of our governing institutions” and argued that the solution lies in turning our focus away from Washington and toward “the real source of legitimacy, which is with the people.”
There is indeed a 'basket of deplorables,' though not in the sense Hillary Clinton meant. The real deplorables are 'the others.'
Kimball’s reference draws from the framers of the American Constitution, who viewed power as ultimately residing with “the people.” But that was then, and now is now. In 1787, it was clear who "the people" were: Christians, regular Bible-readers, mostly property-owners, and people capable of local self-governance.
Today, the concept of “the people” is far less clear. With an estimated 346 million people living within our borders and the influx of illegal immigrants actively promoted by Democrats for cheap labor and votes, it’s nearly impossible to determine who actually resides in the United States.
About half of our likely voters intend to vote for Kamala Harris, a presidential candidate who has been largely responsible for our open borders and for the fact that 15,811 of the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens she and her party have welcomed into our midst have turned out to be serial rapists. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 662,556 of our undocumented residents, most of whom the Democrats have ecstatically welcomed, are convicted criminals. Moreover, in national polls, Harris and her party are only trailing Trump by about 13 points when respondents are asked about the candidates’ ability to address the immigration crisis.
Harris leads Trump by 19 points on the abortion issue, pushing for a nationwide, unrestricted abortion right. To achieve this, she is willing to remove the Senate filibuster if necessary. This expanded right would include the ability to abort infants who survive late-term procedures — legislation her running mate, Tim Walz, already enacted as governor of Minnesota.
Harris and her party also support the right to perform gender-affirming surgeries on minors, which involves genital mutilation, and allow males who claim to be female to use women's facilities and compete in girls' sports. Should we assume that half of the electorate, who support these practices, represent “the people”? If not, why?
Politicians and journalists on the right may invoke the magic phrase “the people,” though they rarely specify whom they exclude from that definition. They likely hope their audience will respond to the term’s familiar sound, feeling an affinity for politicians who use it. However, we shouldn’t expect today’s populists to match the exalted tone George Washington used when appealing to “the people.”
In his June 1783 circular to the states, Washington emphasized the piety and biblical virtues he believed were essential for “a happy nation.” Unlike today’s Republican politicians, Washington knew exactly who “the people” were, and their veneration for him was well-deserved.
William F. Buckley Jr. is reputed to have said about Willmoore Kendall, his Yale professor and a defender of populism: “He would have preferred to be ruled by the first 2000 residents listed in the New Haven telephone directory rather than by the faculty of Yale.” As someone driven out of the Yale faculty 60 years ago, one can understand Kendall’s feelings toward his former colleagues.
But even more relevant is what Kendall was saying about his own populism. Those who invoke “the people” usually have certain people in mind but not others. And from Kendall’s distinctions, it would appear that his fellow academics didn’t rate high among those who belonged to his “people.”
Let me offer my own advice about defining “the people.” We should definitely exclude anyone planning to vote for the Democratic Party this fall. I can't imagine anyone but a moral lunatic or hopeless ignoramus making that terrible choice.
There is indeed a “basket of deplorables,” though not in the sense Hillary Clinton meant. The real deplorables are “the others” — those who don’t care about subverting and denaturing what’s left of our constitutional republic.
Maybe someday MAGA politicians will tell us that they represent the kind of people Washington had in mind when he spoke of “the people”: patriotic, God-fearing citizens.
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
