JPod's Analysis of the Trump Appeal

EIB The Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | March 17, 2016 | Rush Limbaugh

[onyx]

RUSH: Here's Nancy in Pinehurst, North Carolina. Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: Greetings, Rush. I've listened to you probably since the late nineties, and all your sayings kind of stick in my head. I've heard you say things over and over through the years, like one of them especially is "once a liberal, always a liberal." The other one is "conservatism will always win." I don't know why that's not happening this year. We've got a guy, I mean, wouldn't it be great if someone who raises their hand and swears to defend the Constitution of United States would actually do it? I mean, guys like Ted Cruz just don't walk in the door every day.

RUSH: Right. I know. I have said conservatism always wins. One of the things I've really said is that conservatism works every time it's tried, and we are not there. But there's evidence today, you ought to take a look at news coming out of Ireland. Ireland has gone almost total conservative. Denmark is dialing back on its liberalism. Ireland's got 8% economic growth. They have reduced government regulation. They've lowered taxes. They've implemented the recipe and they're rebounding like crazy. And we will, too, if anything like that ever happens here.

And, by the way, all of Washington knows it. Washington is not interested in conservatism working because conservatism, by definition, requires a deemphasized role of government in people's lives, and nobody in Washington wants government getting smaller. They don't want it becoming less consequential. In the case of this campaign, I think a lot of people supporting Trump think he's a conservative, not doctrinaire, ideological conservative, but they don't think he's a liberal Democrat, despite what Cruz has elucidated about Trump's donations and so forth.

Forget all that. How does Trump make people feel? What does he sound like? One of the hallmarks of conservatism is to call attention to failures of government. Trump does that 90% of his speech is government failure. He's not a conservative when he talks about his fixes, but in terms of identifying the problem he comes across to many people who are not doctrinaire ideological conservatives. That's another thing to remember, Nancy.

CALLER: It's just a trust issue, Rush. I mean, we already know what Cruz is gonna do because he's already done it. But we don't know what Trump is gonna do. I mean, to me the guy is a loose cannon. I'm afraid of him.

RUSH: I know, but look, there's also this thing called a campaign. How many brilliant people do you know who don't have a likability factor, I mean, even in politics. I'm not talking about anybody particularly here. But my point is it's tough for anybody that is a professional politician steeped in the dos and don'ts of that business to stand up to Trump. Trump is a definition of a pure outsider in terms of form and so forth. And Trump doesn't have a prompter, he doesn't do speeches, there's no stump speech.

He's got themes he repeats, but every speech is different, every appearance is different. You never know what you're gonna get, therefore it's exciting, it's unpredictable. Nothing is the same. Every other politician it is predictable. You know what they're gonna say, you know what they're not gonna say, you know they're gonna play it safe. It's a tough thing to compete against. But then even so, Nancy, the point I was making earlier, even with all this in all these primaries there were more people not voting for Trump than voting for him.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. It's a shame that, you know, Rubio and Kasich didn't get out before this last Tuesday. I mean, I like both those people. Rubio is a fine man. I don't know whether Cruz would have picked up any more support --

RUSH: Well, let me ask you this, because this is a good test question. Rubio, I think, is a fantastic conservative. I think that speech he gave getting out of Tuesday night was the best speech I've heard in a year. However, let's say Rubio decided that he wanted to officially, big time make it a daily thing, throw in with Cruz, how many Cruz supporters would you think would say, "No, Gang of Eight, he's gonna hurt us, he's not a real conservative, keep him away," how many do you think would say that?

CALLER: I don't know. Probably more than I would like.

RUSH: Right. Exactly.

CALLER: I wouldn't be one of them.

RUSH: Exactly. The doctrinaires, no, no, no, this guy, he's not a real conservative, he was with Gang of Eight, he was with Chuck Schumer, he's gonna taint Cruz by association, we can't have that. There would be some that would say it. I don't know how many, but some would. And then you say, "Well, where's the unity?" Exactly.

CALLER: Yeah, well, I think he'd be an excellent VP pick. I think he and Cruz, and I think if he was with Cruz for four years or eight years or whatever, I think he would, you know, be the next president --

RUSH: Okay, standard political thinking. You think he'd be a good VP, but problem is he hasn't won anything. He's won one election, some local elections to get elected senator.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: But in the national race there would be some question about whether he could help Cruz carry Florida, for example, in the traditional way people look at this. They're up against the unconventional here, and I think that's what it's gonna take to beat it. You have to think outside the box, do outside the box, because that's where Trump is. The aggressor sets the rules in any conflict. I don't think anybody knows what to do with him. I don't think anybody knows how to deal with it because I don't think anybody fully understands what's going on. Which takes me to J. Pod. Nancy, thanks for the call. I appreciate it. I was not being in disagreement or argumentative. I was merely posing questions that I think others would ask and getting your take on them.

Here is John Podhoretz, who, he might resent it if I included him in the club known as the establishment. I don't know if he would or not. It's a toss-up. But, nevertheless, he does have a lot in common with undoubted members of the establishment who are trying to figure out what happened. I mean, if he's not establishment, he certainly is on the same page with them where Trump is concerned. So he's the editor of Commentary, has a column at the New York Post. His father is Norman Podhoretz. He's got great pedigree. Exactly right. It's a long piece. I'm just gonna summarize this in two of his paragraphs.

"So," he says, "what I'm suggesting is --" Well, I need to set this up. His theory is all rooted on the 2008 Great Recession and that, when it happened, who got bailed out? A lot of people got hurt. The mortgage business, the subprime. Who got hurt there? Individual Americans, mortgage holders. But who got bailed out? The banks. People already rich, people already with second homes in the Hamptons. People who already have everything they want in life, they got bailed out. That's when Santelli came along and started talking about the Tea Party and this and that, after 2008.

So in his piece, Podhoretz says imagine that that had happened in 2006, not '08. Imagine it did not happen, that whole collapse did not happen in 2008, happened in 2006. There wasn't a presidential race going on. Imagine everything the same, but imagine the little guy getting bailed out. Imagine everybody whose mortgage was destroyed having that mortgage forgiven. He says there wouldn't be a Trump today. Now, admittedly that's the game of "if." So that's the setup. Here's the final two graphs.

"What I’m suggesting is that the weird timing of the meltdown and the rise of Obama hindered and delayed a reckoning for 2008 that everybody would have expected as a matter of course had the crisis hit earlier. Now, there were certainly suggestions of extra-political populist rage along the way. The Tea Party was one, though it focused on size-of-government issues, and Occupy Wall Street was another, though its anti-banker message was swamped by every far-left bugaboo on earth." Occupy Wall Street was a phony created thing anyway in response to the Tea Party.

"But the signs were easy to misread -- obviously, since almost everyone misread them. And this is why, I think, the meaning of Trump is being misused and misunderstood. He says he wants to 'make America great again,' but I don’t think that’s what his acolytes hear." So Podhoretz is reacting, Trump said (imitating Trump), "We're gonna make America great again, make America great. We're gonna win so much you're gonna get tired of winning and you're gonna say, 'Mr. Trump, can we settle this? I don't like it we're winning too much.' No, I never lose. I never lose. We're gonna win, win, win, we're gonna make America great."

He says you're not hearing that. That's not what you hear. What you hear, he writes, "I think they hear that he is going to turn his vicious temper and unbalanced rage on the large-scale forces they feel are hindering them. They want someone punished. Could be China. Could be Muslims. Could be Mexicans. Could be bankers. Could be the GOP 'establishment.' Whatever." Trump is the guy that's gonna get even with 'em for once. Trump's the guy that's gonna punish 'em.

That's what Podhoretz thinks you Trump supporters hear. It's not you know he's gonna make America again because you know he can't make America great again. No. And you know it and you know that isn't gonna happen and that's not why you support him. You support Trump because you really think he's going to act out your rage. He's gonna take it to the bankers. He's gonna take it to the Mexicans. He's gonna take it to the illegals. He's gonna take it to the ChiComs. He's gonna take it to the Vietnamese. He's gonna take it to the Japanese. He's gonna take it to whoever. He's gonna punish 'em for you.

Except, Podhoretz writes, Trump won't be the punisher. "The qualities that have given him appeal to part of the GOP primary electorate would be destructive with a national electorate seven times the size. If he is the GOP nominee, the gender gap -- 12 percent for Romney in 2012 -- will open into a Gender Grand Canyon."

So he thinks you're not hearing Trump's gonna make America great again. He thinks you hear Trump as a guy who's gonna get even with everybody who screwed you. And nothing's gonna change for you except those people are gonna get theirs, and that's why you like Trump, and that's why you put up with whatever Trump's saying. Is that right? Is that who you are? I don't think that's it, myself.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Podhoretz's theory, get-even-with-'em-ism, to me that describes Obama. I think that's what the entire Obama administration has been. But he wants to get even with the founders and everybody who believes in them.

END TRANSCRIPT

[onyx]

No sale. No cigar, Rush.

[HarleyLady27]

Rush has lost a lot of listeners, me for one...I will never and I know the old saying ‘never say never’ but I mean never listen to him again...

He is a globalist and full of hot air the same as Levin, Hannity and the rest of the media...gone, lost forever!!!

[livius]

“Podhoretz’s theory, get-even-with-’em-ism, to me that describes Obama. I think that’s what the entire Obama administration has been.”

Exactly. That’s what set the stage for Trump, who now is implying that he will act out the revenge model for older white men. He won’t, of course, just as Obama has left blacks worse off than when he started.

But this whole pattern of revenge politics started with Obama and the full enactment of the Alinsky model.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I think it’s stupid pessimistic to rant “once a liberal always a liberal” (even allowing for the modern meaning which is oxymoronic — illiberal liberals).

Trump has gotten where he has by an unorthodox method. By assembling a populist parade. This means perforce embracing a mixture of political philosophies. But perhaps it’s the only thing that can even begin to cement this fractured nation back together. To try to move a heap of fragments to the right or any other direction is almost a nonsensical pursuit. And I believe we need to better distinguish the role of church from that of our government stewards. To treat them reflexively as unified causes us grief in two directions. It whitewashes evil (chattel slavery and slaving preachers, anyone? or more modernly, the welfare equivalents of charity?) and it gets churches satisfied with a dumbed-down implementation of Christianity.

[buwaya]

Is that what you are seeing here ?
I don’t.
He is laying out Podhoretz’ argument.
In the end he says -
“Is that who you are? I don’t think that’s it, myself.”
i.e., he disagrees with Podhoretz.
And of course -
“Podhoretz’s theory, get-even-with-’em-ism, to me that describes Obama.”
I don’t see anti-Trump here.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Hating something doesn’t necessarily have to mean vengeance. It can simply mean nonsupport.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

I resemble your remark.

They all drank from the Beck poisoned chalice. Sucks to be them I suppose.

[buwaya]

And for what its worth, and not entirely relevant here, John Podhoretz is a pale shadow of his dad Norman.
I’ve been reading “Commentary” for a very long time indeed.

[LS]

A week ago I was in a Twitter debate with Jonah Goldberg and was really getting him. Podhoretz tried to come to his rescue—a sure sign I was winning.

[livius]

No, but Obama campaigned on vengeance, and I think that has become the new model.

[Political Junkie Too]

I've been thinking about Levin's anger lately. I notice how he tries to box callers into agreeing with him by asking about their conservative "principles," and if they are willing to give up their principles to vote for Trump. He doesn't tolerate any dithering around that question.

So I thought about how I would answer it.

For me, it's not about aligning around my principles, it's about aligning around my goals. I can tolerate a less principled candidate as long as I think he's best positioned to achieve my goals. Of course, there is a minimum principles line I won't cross, but I don't think that Trump is anywhere near that line. But we have to win the election first for any of it to matter, and I don't think the "principled" Cruz has the general crossover appeal to win.

So what are my goals? Right now, they are simple: first, build the wall; second, screw Mitch McConnell. We can go from there.

So who's in the best position to do that?

-PJ

[LS]

Ok, I heard this but I wanted to digest it first.

Rush still doesn’t get it. I think many Cruzers here do, but just as many Trumpers here do (to be honest), they write off this weakness by saying, “Well, he’ll do something different in office.” What I’m speaking of is that he HASN’T “done it.”

I know others have other concerns about Ted, but my main concern is that he can’t DO the conservative “things” as president because he lacks the force of personality, the innovativeness, and the imagination, and my proof is that in the Senate he . . . didn’t . . . do . . . anything. The votes he did have are not reassuring.

THIS is the thing I’ve been emailing Rush and David about for months. The caller is right when she says it’s a “trust issue.” But why do people have less trust in Ted? The answer is clear: he had a shot. He either couldn’t, or wouldn’t, stop anything. Either way, it’s failure.

I don’t know if the right-wing/very conservative group will every realize that or try to realize that about Ted-—not that they have to AGREE-—but they do have to at least understand why he isn’t winning over the conservatives en mass. Rush has refused to go there. He dances around it. He still treats it like some mystery.

So, back to Podhoretz, no, if the economic debacle would have come in 2006, Obama STILL would have been president. His rise just would have been less of a surprise, because Hillary didn’t have answers then any more than she does today.

But when you get to Trump-—and he has warned it will get worse with our debt-—why do people “trust” him? Well, he HAS been successful in the business world, he HAS dealt with financial failure and overcome it, and he HAS negotiated successfully with foreign business leaders.

And we’ve been over this last thing a million times: people have received NOTHING from “constitutional conservatism.” It’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: our survival is at stake, and people are reflexively in some cases (and more thoughtfully in most) going with the guy who is addressing THAT as opposed to “how we get there.”

[HiTech RedNeck]

It can only be so by the permission of the people who choose to uphold it, or discard it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yup. A country that isn’t surviving can’t even worry about its constitution. It’s dead, overrun.

Ted has seemed too clever by half in some circumstances. Sometimes when faced with a poop and the demand to pick it up by the clean end, one simply has to put one’s foot down and say no.

[LS]

That is a great point, and I think you really are onto the key core of Trumpism, which is, “Fix the freakin’ problems.”

Moreover, I’m a little sick of Levin, NRO, Podhoretz, and all these other clowns thinking they get to define what conservatism is. By their definitions, Lincoln, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Madison would NOT be “conservatives.” They ALL believed in a protective tariff. They were ALL “America Firsters.” Hell, Lincoln even protested the Mexican War thinking that it (rightly) would add slave territory to the Union (and, yes, I’m glad we got Texas and Arizona. The problem wasn’t Mexican territory, it was the southern slaveocracy . . . but I digress).

I keep coming back to the Bible, and Paul’s comment that the “law kills but the spirit gives life.” This gets back to your point. Conservatism exists to serve US. A “free market” exists to serve the people and allow them to be prosperous. How has that worked out for the US?

Lincoln stated what you said in the Gettysburg address, namely a principle is only good if it is “dedicated to a proposition”-—in this case that the United States is a great country that needs its borders defended and its economy revived. To parrot the principles without ever finding a way to actually connect it to the proposition yields a separation of the two and usually a rejection of the principles as ineffective.

[LS]

You know, when Washington was overrun by the Brits in 1814, Madison skeedaddled out and left the government in James Monroe’s hands. Monroe was Sec State, but the Sec War was running around out of touch and couldn’t do anything anyway. So Monroe assumed the presidency and the SecWar to go along with the Sec State, successfully organized defense and re-started construction of weapons.

Poor Jimmy Madison tried. He was in the saddle almost three days straight trying to catch up with the army. But the point is, Monroe didn’t look at the Constitution and say, “Gee, I’m not allowed to do all these things.” He just saved the country.

[Windflier]

Caller: “...we already know what Cruz is gonna do because he’s already done it.”

You mean like Ted’s vote to help push through TPA/TPP?

You mean like Ted’s Corker bill vote that gave Iran the means to bomb us into the stone age?

You mean like taking loans from Goldman Sachs for his Senate campaign, then conveniently failing to disclose that to the FEC?

You mean like taking the oath of office from Stabby The Clown?

You mean like hiring Neil Bush as your campaign finance manager?

You mean like attending a private closed door meeting with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich?

You mean like siding with the BLM thugs, OWSers, and La Raza racists against Donald Trump?

Spare me all this talk of Ted’s ‘consistent conservatism’, etc. It’s nothing but a bunch of hype and advertising. False advertising, at that.

[5th MEB]

My principals are GOD, FAMILY, CONSTITUTION, CORPS, and COUNTRY.
I am a Cruz kind of guy, but so far Trump has not trampled on any of my core beliefs.
If Cruz can’t make the grade in the primaries, I will vote for Trump.

[Windflier]

...people have received NOTHING from “constitutional conservatism.” It’s Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: our survival is at stake, and people are reflexively in some cases (and more thoughtfully in most) going with the guy who is addressing THAT as opposed to “how we get there.”

This, more than anything else, is the basic rationale for Trump's appeal.

People want to argue the finer points of ideological purity while the damn house is on fire. They simply fail to see that most voters want a fireman to put it out before everything's lost.

Perhaps after we've got everything secured, and the house put back into order, we can start talking about running it from an ideological perspective again.

[Dawgreg]

Bingo! Me too......giving you a cyber handshake.....;)