What's Driving the Establishment's Preference for Trump over Cruz?

National Review ^ | January 18, 2016 | David French

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Two weeks ago, I assumed that - as candidates such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich floundered - the GOP establishment would migrate to Marco Rubio and then Ted Cruz before coalescing around Donald Trump if and only if he emerged as the inevitable nominee.

I may be wrong. Simply put, I keep underestimating establishment distaste for Cruz. In conversations with establishment figures I respect - people who love this country and have nothing substantial to lose from either a Trump or Cruz presidency - I'm detecting a preference for Trump.

Erick Erickson has written that this preference is tactical. The way he figures it, "the Establishment thinking is that if Trump beats Cruz in Iowa, they can then beat Trump with Rubio, Bush, or Christie."

I'm sure that some strategists see it that way, but others are far less optimistic about anyone else's chances against Cruz or Trump, and are asking themselves which candidate would make a better nominee and, potentially, a better president.

Simply put, this latter group thinks Cruz is a phony. They echo David Brooks in the belief that he's a "nakedly ambitious" and "selfish Machiavellian." They roll their eyes at his anti-establishment assaults, detecting political opportunism where his supporters see principle. They're convinced that general-election voters would agree, and that if he somehow won the presidency he'd happily discard his constitutional-conservative stances to keep it.

What about Trump?

The establishment's anti-Cruz faction sees the real-estate mogul as more capable of bringing disaffected Democrats to the GOP, and thus potentially more capable of defeating Hillary Clinton. They've developed a grudging respect for his success, and a hope for what it augurs, since one does not remain a going concern at such stratospheric levels without an ability to adapt and compromise. Though they still think he'd lose to Clinton, they've stopped waiting for his campaign to fall apart, and they're noticing that he represents a classic constituency - Jacksonian America - that is in many ways perceived as less radical than Cruz's grassroots army.

Trump's recent public humiliation of Bill Clinton probably helped him more with establishment skeptics. The conventional wisdom was that the media would only amplify his vicious attacks against Republicans, and that personal attacks against the Clintons would backfire. Early in the race, many on the right even wondered aloud if Trump was a Clinton plant. But he's dominating the media environment so thoroughly that liberal outlets such as the Washington Post and Vox had little choice but to publish pieces explaining the nature and extent of the rape and sexual-assault allegations against the former president. Could he actually take on Hillary on equal terms?

To be clear, this growing preference for Trump is born of deep despair. The establishment doesn't want the race to come down to Trump and Cruz. They still vehemently disagree with Trump's immigration stances and think his proposed ban on all Muslims' entering the country is madness. They still think he's making the wrong kind of appeal to justifiably angry Americans, uninformed on key issues, and would govern to the left of many rival candidates. But when Trump says that Cruz "can't get along with anybody in Washington" and that "everybody hates Ted," he's echoing the very establishment against which he's campaigned so loudly. Influential voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are recognizing as much, and telling Trump to, in Levin's words, "cut the crap."

We're two weeks from the first votes, and - though hardly inevitable - a simultaneous, seismic defeat of both parties' establishments seems more possible than ever. But defeat won't force party insiders to walk away; it will only mean they have to pick new sides.

Trump has survived everything the establishment has thrown at him. Can he survive its support?

[lentulusgracchus]

General concurrence bump.

Cruz, Dr. Carson, Trump with a minder. (I propose Michelle Malkin with a shotgun.) ;)

[stilloftyhenight]

ROFL. The establishment? Seriously?

[Enlightened1]

EVERYBODY KNOWS, the Establishment, guys like McCain, Rove, etc. have been after Trump since last Sunmer.

They have not been after Cruz because he is not electable. He is not even qualified.

Keep shoving LIES jack@ss!

[major-pelham]

The whole race is now. After the way the campaign is going the voters aren’t going to back milktoast GOP candidates. It’s Cruz or Trump and its all on the table - right now. Further the establishment has no power over the voters at this point. None. discussion about Machievellian plans or manipulations is just something to write about.

[Buck-I-Guy]

That’s an easy one. Cruz is conservative. Trump is a liberal.

[AdaGray]

It’s really very simple. Trump will negotiate. Cruz thinks he’s Robespierre.

[Yosemitest]

It's SIMPLE!

SOCIALISTS support SOCIALIST !

Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy.
Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however.
Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group.
Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.

Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective.
Socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce.
Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism,"
which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning.

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism."
While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems,
whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests.
Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

Pronunciation: soeshoolizim

Also Known As: Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, communism, state ownerhsip

Alternate Spellings: none

Common Misspellings: none

Examples: "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality.
But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
-- French historian and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville

"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
-- author George Orwell

So how would YOU define someone who LOVES and USES "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE US" to acquire property to build his Hotels ?


Let us remember ...

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

[patq]

When the National Review quotes Erick Erickson you know the article will have some rock solid logic. LOL.

[Servant of the Cross]

Trump has survived everything the establishment has thrown at him. Can he survive its support?

[norwaypinesavage]

I think the answer is quite simple. What does the GOPe do best? It kisses up to whomever is in charge. The problem with Cruz is that they have burned their bridges to him. He can’t be “kissed up to”. Trump is obviously the opposite. He lives by adoration. He is the ultimate kissee.

[Cboldt]

What’s driving it is that the party sees the handwriting on the wall. Trump beats Cruz in voter preference.

[trebb]

The Establishment is in a bind - they can back Trump, an outsider, or they can back Cruz, a rebel who "should know better".

They are betting on a disaster and want to wash their hands of it so they can claim that they were right all along and what we really needed was a Bush or a Rubio.

If Trump (or Cruz) makes it to the WH, and they do a good job, the Establishment takes a huge hit.

No matter which one wins, get ready for a LOT of so-called Republicans to be blocking them at every step. The winner will have no choice but to use the Bully Pulpit often - to name all those who betray the base that they keep lying to in order to get elected, then promptly breaking all their promises - and to use a lot of EOs to turn over all the crap Obama put in place and even to change some things like the EPA/BLM etc.

[Harpotoo]

Dear god, 1 day it’s Cruz, the next Rubio, then Trump, then back to Cruz. These articles are getting ridiculous!

[KGeorge]

One difference, CW. When the bs starts at the convention, Cruz will hand his electorate votes to Jeb & make his usual lame excuse. Trump. Will see them in hell first.

You want Jeb? Keep pushin for Cruz.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I think your crystal ball is cracked.

[KGeorge]

ahem

[roamer_1]

What's Driving the Establishment's Preference for Trump over Cruz?

EASY. Trump will deal - that's what he does. Cruz will not.

[don-o]

EASY. Trump will deal - that's what he does. Cruz will not.

Sadly that will go over many heads here or in one ear and out the other.

Trump is lionized for being "pragmatic." But pragmatism makes no place for moral absolutes.

But moral absolutes are dismissed as as irrelevant - of no real import. Quite a mess we have.

[roamer_1]

But moral absolutes are dismissed as as irrelevant - of no real import. Quite a mess we have.

No sense in saying more - they've got the bit in their teeth. I'll retire from it soon... Go back to the Christian forums and the RF... These folks aren't interested in principles, or anything close to Conservatism.

Poop slinging ain't my thing.

[don-o]

Do as you need to, but I would miss reading and engaging. Carry on for the lurkers