Is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie the Republicans’ Bill ClintonBill ClintonDole alone in not shunning GOP convention Trump's VP: Top 10 contenders West Virginia is no longer Clinton country MORE, Chris Cillizza asks in his Washington Post column on Friday. But is it humanly possible for conservatives to think beyond 2016? Or, as Cillizza suggests here, must they pretend it is 1992 all over again?
But this is the core issue below, and how do Christie/Bush and their New York billionaire bundlers address it?
This Sunday on “The McLaughlin Group,” commentator Pat Buchanan suggested that heading into 2016 there is a division between the “establishment” and the “populist” movement, an apparent reference to the contemporary hoot which is the Tea Party. Proposed here that this is actually the rowdy awakening — as all movement beginnings are rowdy — of people and economy heading west post-war from the Northeast. It has created a new cultural, economic and political paradigm, and a fundamentally different and newer America.
The difference today of establishment vs. populism, or passing generation (McCain/Graham) vs. rising generation (Paul/Cruz) could better be understood as a shift from old America (Kennedy/Bush) to new America (Rand PaulRand PaulThird-party push gaining steam Activists target Google employees over GOP convention plans McConnell pledges to support Trump MORE, Ted CruzTed CruzRyan fans GOP civil war over Donald Trump Rick Perry backs Trump, open to VP spot Missouri Republican: Trump has not earned my vote MORE, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Marco RubioMarco RubioTrump lands Calif. lawmaker endorsement Trump: Rubio as VP 'could happen' The Trail 2016: GOP stages of grief MORE, Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Michele BachmannMichele BachmannChief strategist of pro-Trump super-PAC guilty in payment scandal GOP operative Ed Rollins joins pro-Trump super-PAC Michele Bachmann trolls Clinton on NYC subway MORE) with Christie leading the Lost Cause Conservatives in their Pickett’s Charge on behalf of old America.
Because there is a vast cultural and economic difference between places like Boston and New Jersey, which were settled and evolved here for 500 years and were eyed by the adventurous since Henry and Anne Boleyn squabbled and Virginia was named after their daughter. Texas was barely settled in the 1880s and carries little European interest and baggage. It is born free in the desert. And Utah, the Mountain states, the plains and California fall into this same purview.
The contentions which are risen today are essentially between new and old America, much as those in 1776 were between new and old England.
To hear the National Review crowd talk post-war history, it appears to run Churchill, Reagan, Bush I and II. Real-life observers might instead consider Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan as the great conservative influences. It is they, two Californians and a Texan, who naturally emerged in American leadership as demographics led us west.
The rising Christie/Bush paradigm is an attempt to walk it back across the desert to New York, New Jersey and the East, but fate does not serve well those who turn back.