radiclibs and reactionaries

I was glued to my CNN again last night.  A NY Times report about the two guys who broke Nunes into the white house, Flynn asking for immunity, Spicer saying he ain't going to say nothing about nothing,  What a tangled web, still no smoking gun, but an awful lot of smoke with no other explanation and the perp is clamming up.

My guess is that the Russkies hated the big girl, and had nothing special for Dump except they like to spread chaos in the USA.  Both Putin and Dump hate the press, well press that doesn't fawn over them, so they have that in common.  Some of Dump's people were cozy with the Russkies so why don't the two play a little footsie?  As Beagles points out Dump has no ideology, so the only thing the Dumpists believe in is him, so anything that would give him an edge is perfectly allowable.

You don't remember radiclib?  How about the nattering nabobs of negativism?  Imagine Agnew, who probably had an IQ in the single digits, thundering those lines while Safire chortled and rubbed his hands together, politics become poetry,  Ah those were the days.  Kilpatrick, that was another conservative who also wrote a column about language,  He was a little more stuffy than Safire, and of course I hated the politics of both of them, but what a joy to read people writing about language,  No columns like that anymore.  I blame the internet.  Reading a crisp newspaper in the morning is a lot more inducive to appreciation of language than peering at a screen nine or ten times a day.  That's another thing that's wrong these days.  We used to get our news digested and contemplated in the morning, again on the evening news, and once again at ten.  Anymore we get snatches anytime in the day, and we tend not to read them closely because there will be newer news in five or ten minutes.

I think Dump is properly labelled a populist.  He rails against the current structure and appeals to the common man.  Kind of sounds like us radiclibs back in our day doesn't  it?  Now that I think about it we thought that the establishment deserved to be torn down and we thought the press was against us.
Well there were differences which I can go into in detail upon request, but the similarity is closer than i would like it to be.

Dump doesn't really fit into that left/right thing.  He could go to either side depending on what he thinks will work or what his whim is on a particular day.  So far he is on the right because that is simpler and closer to the common man.  Right now he is getting pricked by the FC and threatening to go to the dems, but I don't think they will deal with him.  I hope they don't.  I have often wondered what would have happened if Dump had run as a dem and been successful.  Would the dems have kowtowed to him the way the reps have?  I'd like to think not, but I am not entirely sure.

I don't hear the term reactionary lately.  It used to he an epithet that the left hurled at the right.  (The left was never as good at hurling epithets as the right, witness the sad decline of the word liberal.) The term was originally coined when that left/right thing was first formed by the French, and it meant somebody who wanted to bring back the king.  In that sense it sounds like Dump who would like to be the new king.  Think of that wolf's den of his loins as princes and princess.  Brrrr.