I haven’t read the whole symposium yet, but I agree with the Beck And Boaz. I understand, and even share the rage that fuels his campaign. I don’t understand the notion that someone as completely lacking in principles as him is the solution.
19 thoughts on “Conservatives Versus Trump”
Comments are closed.
Ace of Spades:
— the establishment/elite has been selling lies to everyone outside the donor class for years. They use their power to enact their own priorities into law, while telling the rest of us “it’s too hard” or “it will scare the moderates.”
NR was right there helping them do it. Until Trump made immigration “safe” to talk about immigration wasn’t exactly a priority with the NR team. Yes, Trump sucks, but the horse has left the barn. I’m voting for Cruz, but NR lost their legitimacy with me some time back.
Thomas Sowell:
No doubt much of the stampede of Republican voters toward Mr. Trump is based on their disgust with the Republican establishment. It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?
They’re probably not supposed to be, but one could argue that’s exactly what happened in 2008/12. How else does one explain the election of an individual who’s only prior experience was community agitator? There are other emotions besides anger.
A shoot-from-the-hip, bombastic showoff is the last thing we need or can afford.
Sorry sir, that’s just incorrect. I may not know exactly what the “last” thing we need is, but Trump ain’t it. There are at least two individuals who would like to be the next POTUS that would inarguably fall lower on the list.
I’ve been following Jonah Goldberg for the past several months and I really would like to hear a good response to this:
“Wait, we can elect, and re-elect, Barack Hussein Obama, but Donald Trump is a step too far?”
His answer would be an unconditional: “Yes”. There are millions of voters that would respond: “You’re nuts.”
Obviously Trump isn’t a “solution” to any other “problem” than Hillary as President. And obviously we don’t even know if
1) that’s a real solution at this point, or
2) whether the “solution” would turn out to be worse than the “problem”.
But I would argue the best path forward is to work on the second of those two items and leave the first one to work itself out.
Sowell’s argument is a straw man. The disgust stems from a lack of commitment to a promised agenda. Elections are where you hold politicians accountable, as opposed to taking them to court as a final option before revolt.
I’m not saying Trump will live to any promise, but I know Rubio has not, the previous Bush’s have not, and others like Kasich won’t stand a chance in the general election. Considering the NR print follows after some Republicans were suggested to claim a vote for Hillary or Sanders is preferable to Trump or Cruz; I know of no better way then the ballot box to hold those Republicans accountable.
Consider: A republican who flakes on his promises does less damage to the country than a democrat who keeps his.
I think that years of abuse have so traumatized the average Republican voter that even a whiff of establishment sends them running to The Donald.
People want strength in a candidate. That’s not the main thing, but it needed to be said, and gotten out of the way.
Mostly, it’s immigration.
Any plea to Trump supporters must begin with the acknowledgement that his voters had been lied to before, over and over again. And then again, over and over.
They need to hear apologies galore, and then National Review needed to understand that those apologies won’t be believed at first. Without it, they’re digging a bigger hole. Then, instead of promises that, if elected, they’ll seal the border, they needed to begin work on sealing it right now. That’s a taller order, but they’ve dug a really, really deep hole. More words aren’t enough.
I know a fence isn’t the ideal solution. But a fence is semi-permanent. It’s too late for words. People need to see something solid, and a fence would be a physical sign that the lies might possibly, perhaps, have almost ended.
Boaz’s claims should have been shoved into a drawer and locked away. National Review has to know that nobody believes anybody’s claims of “racism” anymore. George Wallace????? I can’t imagine what those people were thinking. Were they all sleeping through the last seven years? Did they not read about Sad Puppies?
Ya, Trump may not be honest about carrying out his campaign promises but we know Rubio and Jeb are lying. A Trump that stabbed his voters in the back would have a hard time getting reelected. Trump is setting a high bar for his performance on a number of issues. If he sucks, he won’t be able to wrap himself in the race card like Obama and the media is less likely to ignore major failures.
There are a lot of incentives for Trump to perform well and keep his promises.
Also, unlike Obama and Sanders, Trump doesn’t hate his country. Hillary seems to be agnostic. Rubio is trying to capture the love but it just isn’t working out for him because of amnesty.
I hear you. But “completely lacking in principles” probably is not the best descriptor to distinguish Trump from the GOP. Voter anger is reducing this to an anybody-but-them mentality.
Heh…
The interesting thing is the conservatives are mostly saying nobody if not him (Trump or Cruz really). The GOPe side is now saying anyone (Hillary or Sanders would do) if him (Trump or Cruz). Who is supporting the party? Who is angry?
If the Republican “leadership” goes for Trump vice Cruz, they will lose conservatives for a generation.
Will lose conservatives? They already have.
Conservatives need to be won back. Lies about racism aren’t going to help.
Nonsense.
Extra text to make WP happy.
Its funny to see the establishment attack a moderate centrist big government establishment candidate. Trump has some unconservative views? I thought the establishment was always saying that people needed to compromise and that a pure conservative was unelectable?
This is a strange cycle and a weird tactic to use that plays straight into Trump’s narrative. Maybe they want Trump to be the nominee? Instead of attacking Trump this way, they could have just endorsed Rubio, Jeb, or Kasich.
Most people are going to vote for whomever the candidate is, so how many will stay home or even vote for Sanders if Trump is the nominee? There is an untapped voter pool as large as either of the parties, how many of them will Trump bring to the polls? Let’s say Trump isn’t the nominee, how can you appeal to his non-Republican and new Republican supporters?
Cruz has, or had, the right approach, smother them with love. The kick them in the nuts and demand they vote for you approach doesn’t seem like a winner.
I don’t think that National Review is “the establishment.”
They do lead off with Beck, so you have some support for that but some, maybe most, of those writers are certainly establishment and nearly all make their living through being a talking head. They are all insiders.
They have some good points and I agree with a lot of them but this is a tactic that plays into Trump’s narrative. People will view this as an establishment attack and it will probably help Trump and the people who already dislike Trump won’t dislike him any more or less.
I think they’re in alphabetical order.
Trump is a Darwin separator for the GOPe. So far they’ve failed. Of course, GOP failure is no actual surprise to anyone who was paying attention for the past ten years..
Want us to give up on Trump? Stop telling us how wrong we are (as opposed to the big brains who got us into this rathole) and start convincing us you’ll do a better job. A public announcement that Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Karl Rove are officially out of the Republican Party for what the Navy calls “Lack of confidence in ability to command” would be a fine start, but just a start.
Want us to double down on Trump? Keep on trying to convince us by insult (“low-information voters” is my fave) , and keep on trotting out folks who thought Mitt Romney and John McCain were ‘conservative enough’ to tell us how wrong we are.
Mark Steyn’s response is here. And Jonah’s follow-up is here. One of the more dis-jointed G-Files I recall seeing in quite a while. He allows that Cruz isn’t his first choice (that would be Rubio or Christie). At this point I think Jonah identifies himself more as a member of the media as opposed to a member of Conservatism Inc. (or however he’d put it; the Conservative Movement? I dunno). Glenn says the GOPe hates Trump and fears Cruz. I think the media are the exact opposite. There have been previous politicians who had the word “Teflon” applied to them. Throw mud and it just doesn’t stick. With Trump I think they see something that’s beyond Teflon. Throw mud and not only does it not stick, the target’s popularity actually increases. For them that’s terrifying. The idea of loosing the ability to be king-makers by unloading some juicy bit of dirt at just the right time is unthinkable.
At any rate Jonah preferring Rubio or Christie shows he really has lost touch. He says he sees the anger, he sympathizes with it of course, but “anger isn’t an argument”. No, it’s not. But when your idea of an argument is a discussion about whether we import 50,000 Syrians into this country per year or 150,000, “anger as argument” is exactly what you’re going to get. Bemoan it all you want; it’s your microphone. Just try a little harder to grasp why “until we can figure out what the hell is going on” seems to be resonating.
The thing that disturbs me is Trump’s resemblance to Mussolini.
Come to think of it, that might not be so bad. Obama couldn’t make trains run at all, despite the “focus” on high speed rail. A Trump that can make them run on time would really show the Dems.
Of course, I’m being sarcastic.