Author: donelsonfiles

The No Labels movement has ended for now and the failure of establishing this centrist party is based on No Labels lack of understanding of where the political center is.  Jeffrey Carter noted, “No Labels also failed to understand the underlying currents in American politics. If there is a commonality behind the early Bernie Sanders supporters, the Ron Paul supporters, and the Tea Party movement it is to get big government and big corporate out of their lives.,,No Labels was for big government. Hence, it didn’t have what we call in the startup community, product-market fit.” The reasons are many but here are two that stuck me as obvious. This was a top-down movement with few donors and few dissatisfied insiders who mostly reside in Washington DC and there were never any grassroots efforts.  If the No Labels were serious, they would have understood that this was a movement that would take time and find a niche to penetrate.

The other problem is what a reporter friend of mine told me, this was a big grift that was designed to stop one guy, Donald Trump and he relayed to me that if there is a chance that this could help Trump, they would cease to operate, and Joe Manchin and Larry Hogan chose not the run after they were told they could aid Trump against Biden.   Again, this top-down movement was not serious about forming a political Party and appealing to grass roots.

Carter noted, “The old Reagan Republicans are different than the Romney crew. They are free traders, and for small government. They are for a strong defense. They are pro-innovation. They are pro-life.” What people don’t remember that Reagan was not the choice of the Republican establishment and while he had to compromise with them, his economic plan, and his plan to win the cold war, had many within the establishment opposing him or as one Presidential candidate in the 1980 primary claimed, Reagan economic plan was “voodoo economics.”  Eventually that candidate made peace with Reagan and ended up his Vice President.

If you looked at their proposals, they were reflective of what many Republicans believe and for many Republicans who are tired of the Trump drama, this could have given them an option.   We were talking getting our border under control, combining voter ID and early voting similar to laws passed in Red States like Georgia.  Election security is important Americans and No-Labels promoted that.  Congress needed to get our financial house in order and  on energy, it is “all of the above” as they noted, “When Washington tries to prohibit exploration of America’s fossil fuel resources or discourage investment in the sector, all it does is weaken our country and strengthen other oil- and gas producing countries like Russia that will gladly meet the world’s growing demand for energy. Meanwhile, neither Democrats nor Republicans in Washington have done enough to champion the expansion of carbon-free nuclear power, which is more reliable than wind and solar and cleaner than oil and gas. Despite the fact that US nuclear facilities are among the safest industrial facilities in the world—and newer reactor designs could make them even safer—the number of nuclear reactors in the US hasn’t increased in three decades.”

So, there were issues that many within the populist movement who would support border security, or the energy plan proposed by No-Label movement.  And as I noted a few months ago, “Democratic Party, which has become the socialist party of the America, but the GOP is still trying to define itself, is it the Party of main street and the common folks.  Who will stand up for the middle class?     They also stand up for parents to be able to escape failing schools and protect citizens from criminals.”

And I added, “I made the case that the importance of supply side economy and that its definition must be expanded in my book, “Americas at the Abyss, will America survive?” I made the case that government spending must be controlled, regulations burden reduced, and supply side had to move beyond just tax cuts. Trump did two of three, reduce regulation and tax reduction which benefited most Americans. The result was continuation of the recovery and more importantly the middle class, minorities, and lower income saw their income increase.  Economic growth matters but Trump failure to get government under control hurt his overall economic plan and the massive spending during the Covid pandemic along with the anti-growth lockdown hurt the economy in 2020 and ended Trump chances to win. 

We are now in the decisive battle as a movement to identify what conservatism will be in the 21^st century and be able to turn this nation around.  The future of conservatism is to combine Trump populism with Reagan conservatism. 

 Dominic Pino detailed this recently, “For decades, tax cuts have been at the center of the conservative economic agenda. But some on the right want to deprioritize them in favor of other economic goals. Senators Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, J. D. Vance, and others talk of the need for a new Republican economic agenda focused on things such as industrial policy or social policy. The Trump administration sought to increase tariffs, and conservative defenders of protectionism are being more vocal…Tax cuts seem to irk some right-wing commentators. In May 2020, writing for the American Conservative, Michael Cuenco bemoaned the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the 2017 tax-cut law that Donald Trump signed, and called for a “reformulation of fiscal policy along populist economic nationalist lines.” He wrote, “The reformist right should ask: is there any way to stand athwart the supply-side swamp yelling Stop?”

The Republican governors led by Ron DeSantis and others did several things simultaneously, keep spending under control, actual tax reform, school reforms including promoting school choice for parents and actually be concern what is taught in most classroom.  Many of them promoted social conservatives ideals and showed that Trump populism and Reagan conservatism can synergized in a package but then Trump administration showed the same thing.

The No-Labels movement started a direct rebellion  not just against Trump but  the radicalization of Biden and the Democrats.  Joe Manchin, whose own political career as United States Senator ended in 2024 and he effectively left the Party as he represented a state that depends upon fossil fuels and saw his constituents betrayed by the Party he served faithfully for decades.

The MAGA movement is not the radical movement, and the No-Labels could have the opportunity to combine their ideas with Trump populism/Reagan conservatism in the post Trump era.   Instead, they became a movement directed at one man and it was the wrong man, when instead of targeting Trump, Biden is the one who should have been targeted.  The Trump supporters and some RFK supporters are mad as hell, but they are not wrong being angry. They are tired of constant wars that many participated and not sure what foreign aid is accomplished and as Jeffrey Carter noted, “Big Government has foisted upon them because they know they are the only ones that have to pay the price. They might actually be worried about some unsolvable problem like global warming but know full well the people that are producing the solution will put it all on their back. Electronic vehicles are a good example.”

They don’t have the fancy degrees the elites have but they are the ones that make the country work.  They understand much is wrong with America and unlike many of the elites they understand the principles that our country was founded on.  They view that Trump gets them, and he does speak their language. As a real estate developer, he collaborated with them as they essentially built his empire.  RFK is an interesting case since he may be targeting the Middle Class only from the left.  He can take advantage of their distrust of corporate leaders who seem to benefit from their relationship with big government and his opposition to the Lockdowns and mandates contrast to Trump who instituted the lockdown to begin with and allowed the health care bureaucracy to take over running the country and Biden who took advantage of this to institute leftist ideas starting the Green New Deal and expansion of government.  RFK made it clear that he doesn’t buy into Trump is the biggest threat to government as he noticed that it was Biden worked with social media to censored Biden’s opponents and a Justice department that attempts to punish Biden’s political opponents starting with Trump and RFK is not afraid to say what is obvious, it is Biden and Democrats who are the biggest threat to Democracy.  RFK recent decision to review what happened on January 6^th and this too is an attempt to move to center. 

I showed in past article how an American first policy could deliver a modest foreign policy as I mention in a previous article, “Advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement.  The principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.”

The first Gulf War pretty much followed the Weinberger Doctrine. The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war.  And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait.  After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced.  The war was quick as the United States and its allies went in with overwhelming force, destroying the Iraqi’s army.  The big controversy was if United States should occupy Iraq, but Bush and his administration decided not to, figuring the military objectives were achieved, and there was not much support beyond the war for a permanent occupation but followed a containment policy against Hussein and Iraq.   You can judge for yourself if the conflicts of the twenty-first century we participated in followed the Weinberger Doctrine.

Which let circle back to the No Label movement.  One problem with the No-Label movement is that they disdain Trump Republicans but who are these Trump Republicans?  They want the border controlled, economic opportunities to move up, and they want election security.  They want free speech and know that if they speak about any issues they won’t be canceled and they want to worship on Sunday in peace.  They really want to be left alone and they like their pickup truck and supporting the police in their neighborhood.  No-Labels never understood that many of their own goals they claim to represent also is supported by many with the Trump Republican movement, but it is hard to set up a grass root movement when you don’t understand the grass roots.  No-Labels were comfortable with big government and promised no real reform of big government and the administration state.  The failure of No-Label movement began with a movement against one man and the man who they opposed was not the greatest threat to Democracy but his opponent.  No-Label believed in a consensus politics that didn’t exist and they never understood that the politicians they had worked with for decades were the problem.