Posted on 08/28/2015 9:28:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
‘The Muse of History must not be fastidious.” Thus Churchill the historian. But as Churchill the politician knew, the Muse of Politics must not be fastidious either.
Which brings us to Donald Trump.
Trump is, to say the least, not in favor among the fastidious. He’s not even in much favor among those of us who are nonfastidious in our politics. We at The Weekly Standard enjoy the rough-and-readiness of the American political scene—but we also understand the distinction between a reality show and reality, between performing and governing. We love American democracy and are impressed by Trump’s mastery of some of the arts of democratic politics—but we also acknowledge that Trump embodies much that is dubious about mass democracy. We admire the American people—but we also grant that Trumpism exemplifies much that is problematic about American populism.
Still, the fact remains: Donald Trump stands, unexpectedly and impressively, at the center of gravity of the Republican presidential field. His rise has been spectacular, a shock not just to the Republican establishment but to the conservative movement. His fall may be sudden or protracted, complete or partial. Conceivably he won’t fall at all. But in any event, Republicans and conservatives can’t afford fastidiously to turn their back on, or mindlessly to embrace Trump . . . or Trumpism.
What is Trumpism? Elsewhere in this issue Christopher Caldwell and Julius Krein consider the question. In this they join other thoughtful commentators who have recently addressed this matter. What we have to add to the conversation is simply one name: Richard Nixon.
After all, isn’t Donald Trump’s political appeal a kind of cartoon version of Richard Nixon’s? Nixon was the most consequential Republican in America for a long time, arguably from the Hiss-Chambers hearings in 1948 until his resignation from the presidency more than a quarter-century later; a candidate who ran five times for national office, four times a winner and losing only once, possibly as a result of stolen votes in Illinois and Texas; a politician who invented the Silent Majority and laid the basis for the emergence of a governing Republican majority; a president whose achievements pale beside those of our beau ideal, Ronald Reagan. But no Nixon, no Gipper.
Now, in 2015, we seem to be replaying history in fast forward. What took 16 years, from 1964 to 1980, is now happening in a matter of 16 months. The Tea Party was in a way a replay of the Goldwater movement—a visceral, deeply felt, and in many ways justified rebellion against the pretensions and depredations of big government liberalism. Both rebellions fell short of attaining the presidency. Both were followed by a less constitutionalist but perhaps more wide-ranging revolt against the cultured despisers of American patriotism and traditions—the first of which produced the Nixon ascendancy over several tumultuous years, the second of which has fueled the Trump phenomenon over several rambunctious months.
The Nixon era was followed, after a short interlude, by Reagan. The task today is to ensure that the Trumpian moment is followed—with no interlude, and with time telescoped—by a neo-Reaganite victory, one that builds on what is best in the Tea Party and what is healthy in Trumpism to create a politically viable governing conservatism.
The current candidates are, understandably, struggling to come to grips with the phenomenon of Trump. None has put the pieces together as Reagan did. Can one of the 2016 contenders be Reagan to Trump’s Nixon? Can any of the candidates—or one not yet in the race—move beyond disgust at a decadent liberalism to forge a vigorous governing conservatism? That is the question of the hour. The Muse of History will smile on any political leader who can pull this off.
He hasn’t a clue.
Did I miss his Fox News Sunday appearance - pre comment disclosure that his wife is working for elect-another-liar Clinton?
>> We at The Weekly Standard enjoy the rough-and-readiness of the American political scene—but we also understand the distinction between a reality show and reality, between performing and governing.
Said the self-aggrandized, tedious ass-clown.
At least he was able to restrain himself from insulting those he is seeking to influence.
B.S.
The analysis seems spot on to me. Trump is a cultural conservative at best, not in anyway a small government man, like Richard Nixon. The Silent Majority of Nixon were the cultural conservatives of the 1960’s, but these people were solid with New Deal America. They despised the New Left, but liked the Old Left. What I am seeing with Trump is that small government Reaganism is dead, it might never have been accepted by a majority in the first place. Most people who identify as conservative are cultural conservatives, not small government or even free market conservatives. Those two trends, which I personally identify, will be wandering the wilderness for a long time. I understand now that I am in a small minority. The old New Deal Silent Majority is back and riding in the Trump wagon. Who said history doesn’t repeat itself, it is 1968 all over again, except Mayor Daley is a Republican delegate for Trump.
“move beyond disgust at a decadent liberalism to forge a vigorous governing conservatism...”
Okay. Wha?
Well, as they used to say in the place I started my career, when in doubt, use big words
Cartoon character? I’ve got news for the suddenly Reagan-nostalgic w Kristin, if Mickey the mouse or Donald the duck came out speaking the way Trump is, either one would be the front runner, AND would do a better job than BO, Bush, or any dem these GOP ers put in the WH by throwing the race again for the third time
Nixon didn’t invent the “Silent Majority”.
Maybe (just maybe) he can be credited with
coining or popularizing the term but the
silent majority was what was left when the
noisy hippy protester minority was subtracted
from the national equation. There was no inventing
involved. Call it cause and effect, if you will.
IMO part of Trump fascination is that he happily
throws shade at the PC run amok which was released
with the election of Obama. Many Americans have
grown weary of being accused of racism just because
they criticize the most anti-American president in
history. Trump thumbs his nose and the crowds love
it.
It seems that these nobodies want to highlight his reality tv show, while never mentioning his real-estate empire. Of course, this is probably an oversight on their parts./s
Sorry but I bailed as soon as “fastidious” appeared.
[my mind instandly came up with several alternate synomyms for that word]
:)
Um, there isn’t a Muse of politics.
I didn’t see a lot wrong with his analogy here, and the short answer to his question is; Cruz is the Reagan to Trump’s Nixon.
The biggest flaw in his reasoning is his time frame analysis. But that is because he is GOPe, and doesn’t understand they all have been stinkers since Reagan.
It just shows how far things have gone. I give you “Caitlin”. All the giants and movers bow and submit to this idea, and we are fully expected to embrace it. This is the atmosphere in which Trump blurts out “downright things” that shock and befuddle the pundits. It seems to me that the only way Trump can have a lasting impact is to win the nomination and the election, and I’m all for him.
Catching up. Did you see Doughty One’s long post on the 27th? Well done. I still say that I watched Trump in Arizona speak weeks ago and heard him call the enemedia liars three times. Who else has done that? This is August 2015. November 2017 is a long way off. I can’t remember but the bumper sticker of the year is the FReeper with the tag line “Trump is the missile. Cruz is the warhead.”. I suspect the GOPee sees that as well.
For right now Trump is kicking the enemedia’s ass as scaring the crap out of the Rats and RINOs. That’s enough for me. The state I live in has a primary so late my primary vote is meaningless. At least most times. I think Kristol is begining to get the picture. I doubt Trump would be as Progressive a president as Nixon but in the sense it took Nixon to get Reagan I could stand 4 years of Trump to get 8 of Cruz. I keep repeating it, Trump is irrevocably altered the Rat/enemedia’s carefully prepared battlefield and for that alone he deserves our thanks. Look 4 years down the road with ANY of them, Hillary, Biden, Sanders, Jeb, etc., etc. if Trump would be the worst thing that could happen it might just be survivable. I am pretty sure we could prosper with Cruz but the enemedia has got him half Palinized right now and if he were to win they would hog tie him 24/7 so how much could he undo? Trump could just be the guy with enough momentum to turn the ship. I don’t see anyone else who can.
“one that builds on what is best in the Tea Party and what is healthy in Trumpism”
What is healthy in “Trumpism” is Trump.
Have you ever researched: Trump’s real estate empire when he inherited it from his father? His use of bankruptcy to protect his personal interests while allowing his fellow investors to suffer? How much he is really worth?
It is all out there, available, but the cultist refuses to see.
If you are going to spread untruths, at least get your facts straight.
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-is-donald-trump-able-to-file-for-bankruptcy-so-many-times/
I forgot to add - it’s quite apparent that you don’t understand Chapter 11 bankruptcies. They are similar to a chapter 13, but creditors have to be paid - I’m sick and tired of you people spreading crap you know nothing about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.