Posted on 02/10/2016 2:37:28 PM PST by Kaslin
On Monday, grassroots Republican favorite Donald Trump repeated the phrase when an audience member called Ted Cruz a "p----." He came to this conclusion after determining that Cruz wasn't sufficiently gung-ho about waterboarding possible terrorists. Asked to define conservatism at the last Republican debate, Trump stated, "I think it's a person who doesn't want to take overly risks. I think that's a good thing."
On Tuesday, establishment Republican favorite columnist David Brooks of The New York Times wrote a column called "I Miss Barack Obama." In it, he pilloried Senators Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and lamented that Obama "radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I'm beginning to miss." In October, Brooks defined conservatism thusly: "conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible."
Neither of these definitions are correct, of course. But the fact that Trump and Brooks largely agree on the definition of conservatism while fighting each other tooth and nail demonstrates why conservatism is losing.
Both Trump and Brooks think that conservatism is mainly an attitude. It's not a set of principles and policies; it's not a philosophy of human freedom and small government. Instead, conservatism is merely an orientation toward change: Trump wants slow change, and so does Brooks.
So where do they disagree? They disagree about whether conservatism is militant attitude in pursuit of slow change (Trump) or whether conservatism is elegance in pursuit of slow change (Brooks). Trump thinks Brooks is a "p----," presumably; Brooks thinks Trump is a vulgarian.
Neither one is actually conservative, and yet they're fighting for the mantle of conservative leadership.
The problem, of course, is that conservatism has very little to do with attitude. Conservatism demands Constitutionalism, and in the aftermath of a century of progressive growth of government -- including growth at the hands of so-called conservatives -- change need not be gradual. The attitude matters less than the goal. We can have hard-charging conservatives like Mark Levin; we can have 10-dollar-word conservatives like many of the writers at National Review. What we can't have is nonconservatives redefining conservatism as an attitude, and then ignoring the underlying philosophy.
Yet that's precisely what we have in this race. The entire Republican race thus far has avoided policy differentiations in favor of critiques of attitudes. Who is more palatable, the shifty-seeming Cruz, or the smooth-talking Rubio? Who is more worthwhile, the brusque Chris Christie or the milquetoast Jeb Bush?
Who cares?
Republicans have spent so long in the wilderness that they've forgotten what animated them in the first place. At some point, Republicans forgot that their job was to determine the best face for a conservative philosophy, and instead substituted the face for the philosophy. The conservatism simply fell away.
In the battle between David Brooks' pseudoconservatism and Donald Trump's pseudoconservatism, there are no winners, but there is one major loser: conservatism itself. Conservatives need to worry less about how they fight -- whether they wear creased pants or hurl nasty insults -- and instead contemplate why they're fighting in the first place.
The problem is, most Republicans refused to fight Obama and the Dems. Which is one reason Trump is winning.
Bravo Ben!
The race has avoided policy discussions? How about the on me that started June 16, 2015 when Trump said he’ll build a wall?
I don’t like it much either, Ben, but the lying GOPe Congresscritters who broke all of their campaign promises brought this on.
Cruz 2016 or Trump you all into dust!
Another professional “conservative” heard from. Funny how they have no problem with American industry moving wholesale to other countries. Conservatism without nationalism is a fraud. Trump is a nationalist.
Think about it, what have “Conservatives’ done in thirty years? Not a single damn thing. Its time for a Nationalist.
“Conservatism without nationalism is a fraud. Trump is a nationalist.”
Well put.
Nothing conservative about a 500% increase in H-1B visas, or TPP, unless conservatism means hating American workers.
Yup, that’s Cruz’s “conservatism”.
inaction is what trumped conservative thought.
I hope for some conservative action from a questionable conservative rather than a lot of conservative thought from a consistent/pure/established conservative.
A wall and opposition to 20% of the Ds policies would be a YUGE improvement. Opposing 20% of the Rs policies would be nice too since they seem to act with the Ds.
No sale for me, regarding Cruz.
Not a bad article. You have to take Flint into account, though. Madoff, too, for that matter. And you can throw in ISIS.
Right now, people are more concerned about their immediate safety than about devolving power to states and communities.
So in that sense, a conservative attitude of responsibility does beat out the idea of returning to some less centralized system of government in the minds of voters.
Carrier HVAC company just announced that they’re moving out of Indy to...... MEXICO!
About 2000 jobs... :::: poof! :::
Win or lose, Trump will show his true colors soon enough. At least I’ll get to say “I told you so” to all the former conservatives bedazzled by Trump’s shiny words. Small consolation for bigger government.
I agree with what you said
The word "conservatism" has no real meaning at this point. I've switched it out for Nationalism and Patriotism and I'll take a Nationalist/Patriot over a 21st century "Conservative" any day of the week.
PS: He had me at wall.
Free Traitors™ are rejoicing now.
I want somebody who is both WILLING to fight, and ABLE to WIN the fight.
we have to keep the car from falling off the cliff. Calling for a moratorium on Islamic immigration is CONSERVATIVE as hell.
Trying to get homeschooled kiddos in the clutches of the Feds is not: http://www.newswithviews.com/Hoge/anita123.htm
I hate to say it but conservatism does not appear to work for conservatives.Thanks to immigration we are probably close to living in a post conservative world. It looks like it only works for the boys at the chamber of commerce and they are the ones who colluded with the Democrats to put us where we are. Maybe it is time for them to start paying all of those taxes any way.
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.