Posted on 02/23/2016 11:50:04 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
There's still time to turn it around, of course, but now that many conservatives are moving from the bargaining to the depression phase of the Kubler-Ross cycle, we can begin to grapple with the prospective reality of a Trump-versus-Hillary general election.
If you're an ideological conservative, a proponent of limited government, or someone who believes that the president has too much power already, you shouldn't think of this matchup as a contest between horrifying candidates. Rather, you should ask yourself, "Which scenario would be more damaging?" I'm pretty sure you'll find that Donald Trump is the form of the Destructor.
But Hillary is the worst, most evil, liberal ever!
Yes. You should be counting on it. Hillary, as you may have noticed, does not have the charisma of Barack Obama. Not only will she be divisive and ethically compromised, but Hillary will also galvanize the Right. Her presidency - even more now that she's dropped the pretense of centrism - would reinforce the traditional ideological distinctions we've debated for years. Republicans would almost certainly unite against her agenda, which will be little more than codifying Obama's legacy - a collection of policies that half the country still hates.
She won't be able to pass anything substantive. The most likely outcome is another four to eight years of trench warfare in D.C., with a number of winnable, state-level issues for conservatives. Probably, if historical disposition of the electorate holds, a Republican Congress. (Who knows what happens to Congress if Trump is elected.) Hardly ideal. But unless you believe that an active Washington is the best Washington, gridlock is not the end of the world.
The myth that Democrats get everything will persist. But despite plenty of well-earned criticism, the GOP has been a more effective minority party than constituents give them credit for. People are frustrated, but the idealists have (had?) been gaining ground since the Tea Party emerged. Their presence has put a stop to an array of progressive reform efforts that the pre-2010 GOP would surely have gone along with.
With a Trump presidency this dynamic disintegrates.
Just as some Republicans are already warming to the idea of his candidacy, the temptation in Congress to follow Trumpism - a philosophy based on the vagaries of one man - will be strong. Trump's inclination is never to free Americans from the state ("we're gonna take care of everybody!") but rather to do a better job administering the state through great deals and assertive leadership. Or, everything the Founders didn't want the presidency to be.
So while gridlock will still hold up most issues conservatives do care about, chances are high, considering his long history of supporting big government, that Trump would try and cobble together a populist coalition for polices they hate. This will end up marginalizing ideological conservatism from within the party.
I mean, what will Reaganites gain from this presidency? The idea that Trump could dismantle Obamacare - when he backs many of its components and has yet to offer any genuine ideas about how he's going to do it - is a fantasy. The idea that Trump would name originalists to the Supreme Court is equally risible when you consider that Trump has shown absolutely no clue or inclination to understand what originalism entails.
There is little question Trump would abuse power. In some way, it's the point of his candidacy. The thing that gets his admirers excited. "Finally, someone who will use the IRS for us. Someone who will circumvent Congress for us. Obama gets everything; why shouldn't we?"
Some Republicans, already complicit in looking the other way on executive overreach, will likely be enablers - especially when it comes to issues they can get behind, like immigration. Maybe no one cares about free markets and constitutional idealism anymore. The working class is mad! How dare you disrespect its concerns?
There's a difference between caring about the plight of working stiffs and embracing isolationism, high tariffs, and other policies that would destroy their long-term prospects. Is everyone supposed to surrender to mercantilism because it makes 30 percent of angry voters feel better? You can't let a mob run your party. And it's not a mob because it's hyper-populist or constructed around a cult of celebrity or even because it's angry - though all those things are true. The problem is that it's incoherent and nihilistic.
"I hate Jeb Bush, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump and burn your whole party down" is a non sequitur.
It's worth pointing out that the chances of protectionist policies passing - with a bipartisan coalition of progressives and right-protectionists - are far higher under Trump than Clinton. Why should free traders help facilitate this kind of disaster? So they can brag about having a Republican president?
None of this is to argue the conservative movement or the Republican Party is in good shape, that the status quo is working well, or that the leadership doesn't deserve what's coming. I'm not saying someone shouldn't blow up the Republican Party. I'm saying that that someone shouldn't be an unprincipled imposter. Because at some point there's going to be a counterrevolution. Those who swear up and down that they would never vote for Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio because they aren't conservative enough shouldn't be surprised that a large faction on the Right (more than likely, the larger faction on the Right) won't support a candidate who is adversarial to its belief system.
To support Trump would be an exercise in pure partisanship. For conservatives, it would mean facilitating their own destruction. It makes no sense.
Cruzzers post this stuff all day all long.
Look him up! In the link below in the last 1 or 2 paragraph he comments on his atheism. In the same link he also comments on his seeming support of gay marriage.
Of course Trump would be a disaster for this person.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/11/what-obamas-gay-marriage-lie-tells-us-about-politics/
Go vote for Hillary then. And sign up at DU also.
This is just another “Trump isn’t a conservative” diatribe.
Until you stop the wholesale destruction of this nation to the stalwarts and the globalist a everything else is irrelevant.
Arguing for anyone else based on their conservative credentials when they are beholden to the same money and folks who have given us nearly 3 decades of failed domestic, foreign and economic policies is a dead argument.
We have reached the point where what is best for America isn’t even on the table, it’s just left v right small ball to keep folks Balkanized and distracted while both sides sell this nation out.
If you are for open borders, amnesty, free trade et al your not putting America first. If putting America first isn’t your number one priority whatever else you argue is irrelevant. Left v Right when America doesn’t come first in the argument is small ball.
Trump may be a disaster, he may be great, but when the two parties that have given us, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama want to argue Trump will be a disaster they don’t have a leg to stand on.
If he’s a failure in 4 years, he will be voted out.. The Republic will survive. It’s managed to survive you abject mismanaged for most of my life, I highly doubt 4 or 8 years of a guy who puts country over party dogma is going to destroy it.
You might find your answers here.
I copied the first thing on your list that you said he didn’t want to give specifics on, reforming the Veteran’s
Administration................
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/veterans-administration-reforms
I also like his immigration reform position.
How does he plan to do that?
“Nor is hiding the fact that he was still a Canadian citizen, when he ran for the Senate,”
That’s a very good point. Was that even legal to run for senate with a dual citizenship?
The issue is you assume Trump would expand government more than say Rubio or Cruz, and other than lip service what do you base this on? Sure Obama gave us Obamacare.. Bush gave us prescription drug coverage... Neither fall into limited government.
The dillusion far to many on the right have is that they believe the right has been holding the line on limited government. You think federal land grabs started with Obama? Banning of incandescent Bulbs? Rediculous safety spouts on gas cans? Large eggs now legally have no tie to the actual size of the egg? Etc etc etc. you think this expansion has been kept in check by republicans? If so you are ill informed.
Both parties do what their backers tell them, and their interests are stacking the government deck in their favor.
Trying to make any argument that Trump would be a failure by the folks who gave us Bish, Clinton,Bush and Obama is laughable. Trump may be a disaster, he may not, but for the folks who have given us those guys to try to say someone else would be worse is a hollow argument.
This nomination is, at its core, anti-GOP Congress. It makes no sense to nominate a member of the GOP Congress that did very little to stand in the way of the president’s agenda. Rubio and Cruz can only promise to reverse the policies of Obama that *they permitted* to get through Congress!
Other than TDS, there seems to be no real point to this article. The scope is myopic. What about foreign policy? Do you want an oversized government with Trump with an armed forces to defend the nation or an oversized government with Hillary with a Palistinean Authority consulate in the West Wing?
Well 25 to 36 percent said they would quit so that was easy enough wasn’t it.....
https://www.topnewstoday.org/news/0bg3VY.html
“Other than TDS, there seems to be no real point to this article. The scope is myopic. What about foreign policy? Do you want an oversized government with Trump with an armed forces to defend the nation or an oversized government with Hillary with a Palistinean Authority consulate in the West Wing?”
Bears repeating.
It’s about screwing D.C. and p%ising them off at this point.
Like someone else said: Trump is a runaway train loaded with dynamite heading for D.C.
“The most likely outcome is another four to eight years of trench warfare in D.C.”
I must have missed all that warfare, Oh, no I didn’t. It never happened. Like that monster of a fight on the last “budget”.. It must have taken every once of energy to hold the other half of the uni-party to they’re demands.
So, voting for Hillary, are we?
Hillary has killed a lot more than 4 but Trump is fangerous.
I remember people condemning pictures like those at Obama rallies the last two elections.
Now they celebrate. Our Republic is lost.
Just a thought.. Attrition is a good start. In this day, I’m not sure if you can just lay off Gov’t workers??? I am sure we here all know they make way better money then the folks paying their salary. Something has to give.
Um, dude! That "mob" is the American people!
It looks like this author is yet another person who embraces the premise that the people exist to cater to politicians' wishes.
People are tired of the yoke. Trump is running on the promise that he will unyoke us!
And he reveals himself as an flak for the GOPe and their donor class.
So of cause he would rather have a Hillary as President rather than a Republican who is not GOPe, Washington Cartel and Vichy-Republican.
Whoops! Sorry. Meant for the original poster.
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.