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.
Yes, attrition is a good start...
Cut budgets 5 % across the board on normal budgets practices, not baseline budgeting
Offer buy out packages, combine the multi layered multiple overlapping depts...
The government unions will scream bloody murder...
Trumps a union guy so we will see how tough he really is...
Republican president - every “scandal” will have legs.
Democrat president - no scandal ever has legs.
The Unions... That right there would be tricky.. This situation, like so many others would have to be sold correctly, and right to the public.. I agree with your out line by the way.. Here’s a wish, how about starting with the obvious, the non-essentials we here about when DC closes. The US Dept. of ED. Which over lays the State Depts. Of ED, which over lays the Local Depts. of ED.. I need to control myself, getting carried away..
You know I don’t like the guy either, but all this doom and gloom proclaiming he is a disaster from the beginning is falling on voters’ deaf ears who are just eager for an outsider -— ANY outsider to do something to shake up DC. I have even heard federal employees threatening to QUIT if Trump is elected. You know how that is received by the voters outside DC? GOOD!!! We could do with a few less bureaucrats!!!
Trump will be good for America, I'm an American with conservative principles.
I'm a practicing Catholic that goes to Mass and Communion with my pistol in my pocket.
Marriage is between one man and one woman {I've been with Mrs. Alaska for 50+ years}, homosexuality is a mental disease and a sin against God, mooselimbs are worse than communists {but not by much}.
I'm a Cruzer but he is sputtering and marco polo is a proven traitor. I donated to the little Cuban prick, and as soon as he got elected, he went full tilt for amnesty.
“If you claim to be, then you cannot support trump.”
First of all there are no committed conservatives. Not you, not anybody. So let’s dispense with that myth.
Too much nonsense has gone on for too long and involves too many people for you or anyone else to claim this with any legitimacy. You can talk about it, but it’s just talk. I’m including myself in the group of “folks who didn’t do a damn thing for 25 years”
All of a sudden, when there is a Trump, all of the inaction over the past 25 years becomes an imperative.
Here is how Trump is a net positive:
We cannot elect a “conservative” (whatever that means anymore) until the GOPe is destroyed.
Trump appears to be able to do just that.
If we elect ANYONE else - Cruz, Rubio, whomever - we preserve the GOPe, and we have the EXACT same argument in 4, 8, 12.....20 years. “Why can’t we elect a conservative”
There is at least as big a risk in NOT destroying the GOPe by electing Trump as there is in PRESERVING the GOPe.
THAT is why electing Trump makes as much sense as not electing him.
We really do need to destroy the GOPe. The Dems will destroy themselves.
It’s the least (literally) we can do - elect Trump - and improve the system. See if K-street can keep from starving to death for the next 4 years.
“He probably won’t get to fire them because they said they would quit if he becomes POTUS.”
Nobody is going to quit.
Government jobs mean you buy into a culture that you are a critical part of a critical function and that the taxpayers are lucky to have you working “on their behalf” selflessly, heroically.
It’s a psychological disorder.
It works for government employees, military, the fire department, police department, teachers, and bureaucrats of all stripes from your local HOA to the presidency.
They are all in it for the benefits and pay for themselves - so they convince themselves that they are really heroes that are struggling thanklessly against evil.
Nobody quits. They “work” until they reach “retirement” - and often start another “career” in another government sector, or crony government contractor sector.
It’s easy money.
Who are these mythical fiscally conservative republicans of which you and the author speak? Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell?
Better than sitting with both my thumbs up my arse
Wow, the hiporcrisy level is very high here.
Unlike the Trumpanzee I ran across the other day here on FR I do know that it takes the Senate to approve the next USSC justice.
See, I am not a LIV like the Trumpanzees
Cut from the same cloth, the three
The Obama underlings will be gunning for Trump in every agency. He will have to fire a lot of people if he wants to implement his agenda.
“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?”
How did this guy read my mind?
Very fangerous. Yuugely fangerous
I know it. They are just shooting their mouths off. You would have to be stupid to give up federal government pay and benefits.
Graham, Mc Cain and Rubio agreed with Hillary on Libya and immigration
Then we tell ourselves we had no other choice while accepting none of the blame as our Nation rots and molders.
That makes us bigger idiots than the other side for sure - even as we mock them for being idiots -- who always seem to be on the winning end of things.
Pogo had us pegged.
All of you are going to hate me, but Hillary WILL be President. Liberals are attracted to people who lie to get what they want, because that is what liberals do. Way over half of this nation are liberals no matter what label they carry - look at Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Trump, etc., ad nauseum. Trump can NOT beat Hillary because of the moral depravity of the nation. The people will NOT elect a leader is anywhere near being Godly. It’s not going to happen.
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.