Posted on 01/26/2016 7:10:54 AM PST by Theo
When the publisher of National Review Magazine, Jack Fowler, called and asked me to write 300 words on why I oppose Donald Trump for president of the United States, my first thought was about the derision that was sure to come from Trump supporters.
I was not disappointed, or rather I am disappointed that no one who reacted negatively rebutted any of the arguments I, or the other contributors, made about why we think a President Trump would not pursue conservative goals.
Sounding like Trump, I was called a "loser" and someone for whom one writer said he had "lost all respect." Sure, there were some who called me "brilliant" (I'm filing those away), but the name-callers resembled their political master. Trump also refused to address our arguments. Instead, he mislabeled the magazine a "dying newspaper" and said it had lost circulation and no one reads it. Many are reading this issue.
One friend said he is convinced that Trump is "teachable and we can move him in the right direction." On June 14, Trump will be 70 years old. By then, most people have long been settled in their worldview. Trump likes to cite Ronald Reagan, who was a Roosevelt Democrat before he famously said he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left him. But Reagan spent many years honing his conservative principles in speeches, articles, and radio commentaries. He did not have, as some nominees to high office experience, a "confirmation conversion."
Quoting myself would be redundant (read us all at National Review.com), so here is the key paragraph from the lead editorial:
"Trump's politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled. Trump has shown no interest in limiting government, in reforming entitlements, or in the Constitution. He floats the idea of massive new taxes on imported goods and threatens to retaliate against companies that do too much manufacturing overseas for his taste. His obsession is with 'winning,' regardless of the means -- a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power."
In the February 1 issue of The Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes writes: "The Republican frontrunner is a longtime liberal whose worldview might best be described as an amalgam of pop-culture progressivism and vulgar nationalism. His campaign rallies are orgies of self-absorption, dominated by juvenile insults of those who criticize him and endless boasting about his poll numbers. He's a narcissist and a huckster, an opportunist who not only failed to join conservatives in the big fights about the size and scope of government over the past several decades but, to the extent he was even aware of such battles, was often funding the other side, with a long list of contributions to the liberals most responsible for the dire state of affairs in the country, including likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton."
What is the counter argument to these substantive opinions? Anger against the "Washington establishment" is not one. Those who worship Trump have an obligation to say why he is worthy of their faith. Given his liberal background and poor explanations of why he now believes differently, how do his supporters know he will govern conservatively should he win the White House? He once said his sister, who is pro-abortion, would be an excellent nominee to the Supreme Court. His story of how he supposedly became a pro-life convert lacks credibility.
Electing a president, especially in a dangerous world, is important work. Anger and emotion should not govern the choice. Considered judgment should. Trump appeals to the former, but not the latter.
Good point. I would note that most Cruz supporters indicate their readiness to support Trump should he be the nominee. I do not hear anything similar coming from the Trump people.
I would vote for Yeb! if I had too...
Im sorry Cal Thomas guy does not care about power...as a pundit he has a job and that is about it
What if you addressed his concerns for a change
The average worth, not including Trump, of the contenders is about 3 million dollars (Forbes).
The last thing I want to see in the white house is yet another lawyer.
How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? The fact is, that is exactly what they get paid to do. Therefore, they are all liars. All things being equal then, I want a non-politician.
The reason Trump is dominating world media is because his platform is anti-political.
Or more accurately, anti-globalist political.
It has come down to this.
Pretty much all of the politicians are Globalists.
No borders.
No nations.
No countries.
No national identities.
No cultural identities.
No historical identities.
No freedom to protect ones self and family.
No freedom of speech.
No freedom of thought.
No freedom to keep wages earned.
Trump says yes to all of the above.
Trump stands for sanity. Any politician who stands against borders, as witnessed in Europe-istan, does not care if their citizens are robbed, raped, and murdered.
They do not care.
In fact, they encourage it.
Trump is the last hope to maintain the flickering light of freedom.
He is far from perfect. Perfection always requires time, and time is what we do not have.
We must deploy the Trump bomb.
There will be collateral damage, but it must be deployed now.
NOW we are facing an EXISTENTIAL global threat. Huge portions of our nation's leaders---political, corporate, academia, media---have fully bought into the globalist agenda and stand to profit from it greatly. They hope to be the 1%-10% who are the oligarchy at the top of the global food chain, behind walls, in gated communities, with armed security, while forcing the other 90% to live like the third world--in America, everywhere. All the same. Disarmed. No freedom. No freedom of movement or speech. Unlimited migrants owning our streets, rapes and crime accepted and not any attempt at preventing it. The streets safe for thugs and gangs, and normal people at their mercy inside or outside their house. Random terror attacks weekly or daily. Imported labor to do all the jobs, from gardening to computer programming.
Now, we don't have the luxury to argue over conservative vs liberal. Maybe, someday. But now there is ONE BATTLE, period: GLOBALISM VS NATIONALISM.
What do globalists look like? Ted and Heidi Cruz. Look at his work on TPP/TPA, Gang of 8, Gang of 22, Amnesty, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND H1-B VISAS for Indian engineers, computer techies, business professionals. Look at Heidi's work history: Washington insider on "free trade," "derivatives", "equity firms", TARP---hundreds of billions to her employers, JP MORGAN and GOLDMAN SACHS senior executive. Millions given at the drop of a hat to Cruz in exchange for Washington influence. Look at who is funding Cruz's campaign (Banks, Goldman Sachs, tax scofflaw Robert Mercer, NY Gay Mafia) and look who endorses it---GLENN BECK.
Our only hope is to STOP GLOBALISM NOW.
Cal Thomas is a perfect example of an oligarchical establishment Government class elite, living in the past. And I believe all that Grecian Formula and Touch of Gray has socked through his scalp and into his brain.
Yea, enough so to vote a documented liberal.
Exactly.
Well said.
I think what everyone one in America should say to his neighbor is:
“Any politician that does not support the wall does not care if you are robbed, raped and murdered.”
It’s an easy thing to understand.
Hear hear!
Spot on.
“documented liberal.”
I give private persons a pass on changing political positions. Once elected I’d expect them to adhere to policies they ran on.
I do not allow the same latitude for politicians when they change theirs while in office. Or worse, lie about them.
You shouldn't - changing political positions between the previous election cycle and the current one is exactly what an unprincipled opportunist would do.
Nonsense. Since when is denying folks freedom to change their mind a conservative principle.
A private person is not applying to be hired -or campaigning- under any set of principles or policies.
I see you haven't even tried to refute this obvious truth.
denying folks freedom to change their mind
Silly straw man - the point is not to "deny freedom" but to exercise appropriate caution based on red-flag facts.
So some private person who voted for Obama should not be able to change his mind and vote for a Republican this time?
You’re right. What an “unprincipled opportunist”.
Good lord.
I’ll go back to ignoring you.
Two straw men in one sentence: nobody's talking about anyone "not being able" to do anything; and Trump is this time not just a voter but a candidate.
I won't be ignoring your bogus arguments.
Why do we have to test Trump’s conservative principles on one of the most powerful positions in our government? That is quite a gamble to make.
Quite the opposite. It's an opportunity you can't afford to pass up. The choices are, certain death with a Dem, varying degrees of death rattle followed by certain death with the GOP politicians running, or roll the dice with Trump.
Once you weigh the possible downside with the probable upside, it's no gamble at all.
I will not be party to voting in Trump. I’ll write in my candidate and leave people such as you to own the Trump, Clinton or Sanders presidency.
How negative your outlook has become. You’re saying there is no future for the U.S. Donald Trump is no conservative. He will not be the one to pull us back from Obama’s policies, seeing as he espouses most of them.
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.