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.
For your education. Who better to bring this country out of the financial mess it’s in than someone who has been down that road? We, the people, are left holding the bag for the mess the politicians have made out of our debt. They will retire or get voted out of office, with full pay and benefits - (if they have been in office for at least 5 years) and while in office - make millions. How does that stack up against your future? Not so rosy looking, is it?
“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?”
Yes, he took his dad’s inheritance of 6 million dollars and parlayed it into a 6 to 10 billion dollar real estate/entertainment empire. How much is he really worth? A heck of a lot more than you will ever be. Jealous are you?
That which you seem to condemn as bad is actually good.
Leveraging the family wealth to make it increase is a a good thing. It is not necessary for every one to start from scratch to be a successful businessman.
Bankruptcy is not a stain. Bankruptcy is the way our law is written to tie up the lose ends of a business failure/closure. Investors know the risks. Have no tears for investors here. They followed Trump expecting a gain. They chose to take the risk with him rather than starting a business of their own
your argument is specious
Go Scott!!
Details, details. Silence, peasant! You are not permitted to criticize the elite. Perhaps Lord William has rewritten Greek mythology.
Speaking of Caitlin, while I was in the grocery store check-out line yesterday, I was heartened to see that the rack holding the “People” magazine featuring him on the cover was completely filled.
Of course, it may be that the rack was in need of restocking right before I got there, but I am hoping that it means nobody is buying that junk.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Honest intelligent business managers don’t require bankruptcies to keep their enterprises solvent. I know several bankrupt business owners that share a common trait......poor planning and management.
Inflation explains a lot of folks increase in net worth. Trump going from 6 million to 6 billion is no different than many families holding real estate as investments. He’s no genius in that regard.
I take it you are a billionaire?
I would never admit it here.
So you dismiss a very well written, thoughtful piece out of hand ...where are your brilliant ideas? No you don’t have to generate them yourself .....but please point to them
Id love to know what it is you think is worth your time.
Well written piece of elitist cr@p that belittles the very people that are the backbone of conservatism.
Number 2 has posted this to belittle Trump it is just what he does.
The GOP-E continues to prove that stupid people never believe they are stupid.
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.