Posted on 06/06/2017 4:34:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Writers never know when something they write will strike a nerve -- or, in the common phrase of the internet, "go viral."
Yet my last column, "Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump" did both. Aside from being reprinted on almost every conservative website, Newsweek published the column, and The New York Times quoted it.
More importantly, many major conservative writers responded to it, mostly in disagreement.
It is interesting that the column elicited so much attention. Maybe, like the man who bit the dog, an articulate case by a mainstream conservative in support of the president is so rare that people felt a need to publish it and respond to it.
Whatever the reason, I feel compelled to respond to some of the disagreements.
Before doing so, I want to note the respectful tone that permeated virtually every one of the disagreeing columns. We have enough cannibals on the left without conservatives eating each other up.
After reading the responses, I feel confident in saying that they confirmed my primary thesis: Anti-Trump conservatives do not believe that Americans are fighting what I call the Second Civil War, while pro-Trump conservatives do.
Indeed, Jonah Goldberg in National Review said as much. He denied that we are in the midst of a civil war on two grounds: One is that it is not violent, and the other is that we are fighting a "culture war," not a civil war.
Whenever I write about the subject, I almost always note that this Second Civil War is not violent. I never thought that the word "war" must always include violence. The word is frequently used in nonviolent contexts: the war against cancer, the war between the sexes, the war against tobacco, the Cold War and myriad other nonviolent wars.
Perhaps Goldberg would respond that he did not write that all wars are violent, only that all civil wars are violent. But if there are nonviolent wars, there can be nonviolent civil wars.
Nevertheless, what most disturbs me is his second argument -- articulated in various ways by most of those who disagreed with me -- that there is simply no civil war. And many repeated the universal belief among Never-Trumpers that a Hillary Clinton victory would not have been a catastrophe.
My response is that "culture war" is much too tepid a term for what is going on now. Maybe anti-Trump conservatives are fighting a "culture war," but the left is not. The left is working to undo the American Revolution. It's very close to doing so.
Of all people, one would think Jonah Goldberg would understand this. He is the author of what I consider to be a modern classic, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change."
His book leads to one conclusion: We are fighting fascism. How is that not a civil war? When you fight fascism, you are not merely fighting a "culture war."
So, shouldn't the primary role of a conservative be to vanquish leftism? To me, that means strongly supporting the Republican president of the United States, who has staffed his Cabinet with conservatives and already won substantial conservative victories. As I suggested in my previous column, conservatives would have been thrilled if any Republican president had achieved what Trump has at this point in his administration.
"But what about Trump's character?" nearly all my critics ask. Or, as John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine, tweeted, "For Dennis Prager, who spent 40 years advocating for a moral frame for American politics, to argue as he argued today is, may I say, ironic."
First, I have indeed dedicated much of my life to advocating for morality -- for ethical monotheism as the only way to achieve a moral world; for raising moral children (as opposed to concentrating, for example, on raising "brilliant" children); and for the uniquely great Judeo-Christian moral synthesis developed by the Founding Fathers of America.
But I have never advocated for electing moral politicians. Of course, I prefer people of good character in political office. But 30 years ago, I wrote an essay titled "Adultery and Politicians" in which I argued that what political leaders do is more important than their character. To cite but one of an endless list of examples, I would prefer an adulterous president (like John F. Kennedy) who supported Israel than a faithful family man (like Jimmy Carter) who was an anti-Zionist.
Second, as a religious Jew, I learned from the Bible that God himself chose morally compromised individuals -- like King David, who had a man killed in order to cover up the adultery he committed with the man's wife; and the prostitute Rahab, who was instrumental in helping the Jews conquer Canaan -- to accomplish some greater good. (And, for the record, I am not suggesting that God chose Donald Trump.)
Third, though I listed his moral defects in column after column during the primaries, I believe that Trump is a better man than his critics maintain. I see no evidence, to cite one example, that he is a misogynist. His comment about famous and powerful men being able to do what they want with women was a) said in private -- and we are fools if we assess people by their private comments (Harry Truman, a great president, frequently used "kike" in private comments about Jews), b) not a statement about anything he had actually done, c) not misogynistic and d) often true.
Fourth, even if he were as morally defective as his critics maintain, my response is this: Trump's character is less morally significant than defeating the left. If the left wins, America loses. And if America loses, evil will engulf the world.
It will be interesting the ripple effects that tweet may create. Maybe Conway’s husband is in an indirect way trying to get her put before she totally destroys her credibility and career after Trump.
See how easy it is to attack him. Makes you seem so above it all.
No. Simply points out he too often makes it difficult to convey praise.
I consider myself to be an Almost-Never-Trump.
However, I voted for Trump because he was the most “Conservative” candidate who had some possibility of being elected president.
No one else on the GOP national ticket had any chance of beating Hillary.
In my opinion, Trump has never been a Conservative, and at least one third of his top Cabinet secretaries and top advisers are center-left RINOS who never publicly challenge the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, Trump has clearly enforced some Conservative policies and has dramatically changed the national and international political conversation.
However, in the long run, democracy always comes down to basic math.
Trump won the 2016 election because of a sharp drop off in Black voters, because new immigrant citizens vote at a very low rate, and because there was a small increase in Conservative white voters.
Maybe Trump can be reelected in 2020.
But, unless massive LEGAL immigration stops immediately - which Trump will never do - electing a Conservative president will be completely impossible by 2024.
Interesting point. Notice he withdrew from consideration last week. Maybe trying to save both of them.
Way to buy into leftist "resistance theology".
I doubt you have any idea of what he's been able to do with no help whatsoever.
Thank God for Trump being the one to deal with this stuff, I really don't think anyone else could have done it.
Yet, here you are pissing and moaning about how difficult it is to praise him.
Meh. Go suck your paws elsewhere.
You know. Had this been a continuation of Obama or had Clinton had been elected, this forum would have gone ballistic, and justifiably so, had either done or did the same antics as Trump has. The tweets. Make comments to the Russians that he did. Health Care proposal. Even the Russian mess. We would have been just as looney to impeach them on the same evidence as the left is about impeaching Trump now.
And oh yes, include the "Russians", and what he did with the health care proposal. That is if you actually know anything, which I doubt.
Are you from CNN or MSNBC? A friend of Reality Winner?
Wow, so easily duped.
And you expect us to think you're some kind of conservative?
Give us an example rather than a CNN talking point.
With Mrs Bill the Republic would be definitely over and the Constitution would be relegated to being a quaint but racist artifact of the bad old days. Trump, at worst, is life support for a little while. At best he will turn out to be like Pinochet of Chile. I don’t expect much more than the “at worst” but am relieved that the Corporate State and all its ramifications won’t be fastened down for a few more years. I still tell my children to keep their passports up to date and don’t wait until they get cancelled.
Health care proposal. He promoted, lobbied, twisted arms, called, visited and pushed for the horrible Ryan health care plan. The first one.
As for Russia, everyday something a little closer hits home. Now Flynn and Manafort are under criminal investigation. Sure, no indictments at this time. But the investigation is young. Should be crying "lock them up"? And how in the world does Flynn, Sessions and Kushner seem to forget meetings with Russians that were supposed to be disclosed. Had the back channel to Russia been set up as Kushner wanted in a Clinton WH, Free Republic would have gone crazy, as it should have.
Hey. I understand that sometimes, like the mother of an ugly baby, you've got to find beauty somewhere. A lot of folks are grasping at straws.
I sometimes wonder that if Trump for whatever reason admitted collusion on the Russian election involvement, the spin among some would be it was the right thing to do.
Anything other than a Hannity talking point is seen as a CNN talking point.
These people are ridiculous. They will be debating with each other at the very moment a Muslim walks up and slits their throats. They are useless.
Collusion meaning what?
Really? You going to trash Hannity and Trump? Notice you cannot give a single example so you go calling Hannity names. Sounds familiar.
Anything from knowledge of to actively assisting.
What name did I call Hannity?
Knowledge of or actively assisting what?
Trump is hated by the left because they understand him to be a man of action.
The right has so consoled itself with intellectual exercise that most are more offended by a word poorly spoken than the criminal excess perpetrated by the elite. Better to banter niceties than face the depths of absurdity that we meekly accept as government. Trump is so nouveau riche; so bourgeoisie; so utterly crass; so damned American!
Look beyond his fifth grade tweets. Overlook his repetitive repartee. Go as far as to ignore even his accomplished speeches—and he has many. Look at what he has done and add it to what hasn’t been done because Hillary was defeated.
If Trump “fails,” it will be because we have failed the government. Everyone speaks of checks and balances. It’s so easy to blame the President, the Courts, and the Congress when the truth is the people are the ultimate and only check.
There is a bit more calculation or instinct behind those “fifth grade tweets” than is immediately apparent.
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.