Posted on 02/29/2016 5:00:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Confession time: I’m rooting for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination. And not in a casual, that-would-be-amusing way. When he won South Carolina, there was celebrating at my house. When he won Nevada, I did a happy dance. When pundits on TV say in shocked, repulsed tones that his nomination is starting to look inevitable, I say, “Damn skippy.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I like Trump — I hate him with the passion of a thousand burning suns — or that I want him to be president. But yes, I think he should win the Republican nomination. He’s run the best campaign, one that speaks to what Republican voters want to hear, and, by that measure, he deserves to win the nomination, so that Hillary Clinton can wipe the floor with him in November.
This is not a popular opinion, and not just with the establishment Republicans who can’t help acting like the main problem with Trump is he puts his dirty shoes on the couch. The common wisdom in most of the media — conservative, mainstream and liberal — is that a Trump nomination would be a ruinous thing, a blow to both the Republican Party and the political system as we know it. To which I can’t help but say, “So what?”
I don’t agree with Trump supporters on, well, almost anything, but I can’t help sharing in the pleasure they take with the way that Trump’s very existence exposes the smarmy two-faced hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party. Modern conservatism is built on a base of protecting men’s dominance over women, white people’s dominance over people of color and rich people’s dominance over everyone else, but it’s generally considered impolite to say so bluntly. Instead, it’s standard for Republicans to pretend that policies obviously designed to screw people over are meant to help. That puts journalists in this terrible situation of having to pretend that Republicans mean well, since it’s generally considered impolitic to call someone a liar.
Trump doesn’t play that game, at least not as much, and it is nakedly obvious that this, and not his actual beliefs and policies, is what angers many of his detractors. Take, for instance, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review on Fox News recently, complaining that Trump is “completely overturning what the Republican reset was supposed to be about after 2012, which was this idea that it was going to be a more consistently conservative but more inclusive and nicer toned party.”
“And instead it’s going to be a less conservative but meaner toned and less inclusive party,” he added.
To which I must again say, “So what?” People who value kindness and inclusivity already have a party. They’re called the Democrats.
But of course, Goldberg doesn’t actually want a kinder, more inclusive Republican Party. What he and other establishment Republicans want is to be able to pursue nasty, bigoted policies while maintaining an air of gentility that garners respect in the mainstream media. Which is why it gives Trump voters such a thrill to symbolically kick dirt in the faces of folks like Jonah Goldberg by voting for Trump.
Trump annoys because he’s loud and rude. Because if you actually look past the surface, even by a millimeter, to the policy level, this notion that Trump is somehow more hateful than his competitors Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio simply becomes laughable. Take, for instance, this telling exchange from Thursday’s CNN debate:
CRUZ: Did you say if you want people to die on the streets, if you don’t support socialized health care, you have no heart.
TRUMP: Correct. I will not let people die on the streets if I’m president.
CRUZ: Have you said you’re a liberal on health care?
It went on in this vein for a bit, before Wolf Blitzer put a stop to it, but it was a telling moment where Cruz really did try to frame it as soft-hearted and “liberal” to even consider the possibility that human life is worth more than tax cuts. But Cruz is still considered by both the Republican establishment and the mainstream media to be a more acceptable candidate than a bully like Trump. Because Trump calls people “pussy,” which is far worse than letting people die in the street. So crude, you know.
Rubio didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the “let people die in the streets” debate, but since a major part of his platform is eliminating Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, it would seem he is also on Team Screw ‘Em. If those 5-year-olds don’t want to die from leukemia, they should get jobs that have full-time health benefits.
To be exquisitely clear, this is in no way a vindication of Trump. He represents the worst of conservatism. His policies are nonsensical, he clearly would rather burn this country to the ground than have anything approaching justice or equality in it, he is racist to his core, and he has no respect for anyone but himself and people who are just like him.
But that’s just as true of Cruz or Rubio, and in some cases, they are arguably worse.
Trump retweets racist propaganda. Both Cruz and Rubio have backed legislation designed specifically to make it harder for people of color to vote.
Trump likes to rattle on about this stupid Mexican wall that will never be built. Marco Rubio’s immigration platform is also building up a big wall that makes the Southwest look like a war zone. Cruz is also all about that wall, while also suggesting that undocumented immigrants are “criminals and terrorists.”
Trump suggested he’d be up for banning Muslims from traveling to our country. Cruz and Rubio aren’t so blunt about it, but they send the same pro-bigotry message by rushing for the microphones to denounce President Obama every time he dares suggest that Muslims should be treated with respect and dignity. Both have also attacked Syrian refugees, hinting that they are terrorists in disguise who are slipping in through a supposedly haphazard system, which is a total falsehood. Cruz even suggested a bill banning refugees.
“The press went gaga for Rubio after Iowa,” Matt Taibbi colorfully wrote in Rolling Stone last week, because “he’s an unthreatening, blow-dried, cliché-spouting, dial-surveying phony of the type campaign journalists always approve of.” It’s a tough pill to swallow, but it’s true.
And since it’s true, it should be easy to see why Trump supporters enjoy the opportunity to stick it to the journalistic establishment that is so easily swayed by shallow Republican candidates who trick you into thinking they’re reasonable because they wear nice shoes and can somewhat imitate the facial expressions of people who feel empathy.
Look, someone has to win the Republican nomination. In this particular contest of villains, Trump is the least-bad option. Cruz seems like a sociopath who thinks he’s a prophet. Rubio just perpetuates that myth that the politics of nihilism are OK so long as the figurehead is handsome and genial enough. A Trump nomination, on the other hand, would puncture any remaining illusion that the Republican Party is a home for serious people, instead of a den of misanthropes and bullies that see politics solely as a way to preserve their own privilege while screwing over everyone else.
That, and it will probably be easier for Clinton to beat Trump than either of his opponents.
I would rather see Ted Cruz as president, but it looks like Trump would be much harder for the democrats to beat. The writer is wrong about pretty much everything in her article.
so that Hillary Clinton can wipe the floor with him in November.
And ends with this prediction:
it will probably be easier for Clinton to beat Trump than either of his opponents.
Isn't "wipe the floor" several factors above "probably"? And if the point of the article was to show he was really excited that Trump is the nominee, how does he end his thoughts with "probably easier" ? Doing the happy dance for "probably"?
Further, in his description of the debate he provides an example where he believes he demonstrates that Trump is the lesser of two other evils (Rubio and Cruz). He then concludes that Trump is the evilest of all.
Following liberal thought process hurts my brain.
Yes yes please keep saying Trump is easier to beat - yes please do.
I think you a Salon think a lot alike.
You do know Salon thinks we are to stupid to know that they are trying to ridiculously use reverse psych?
But you will jump on the looney Salon choo choo, won’t ya?
Yep, the poo sling is in full tilt!
Modern conservatism is built on a base of protecting men’s dominance over women, white people’s dominance over people of color and rich people’s dominance over everyone else, but it’s generally considered impolite to say so bluntly.
The description this deserves cannot be said with any politeness, though Galatians 5:12 comes close.
The whole point of "modern conservatism" is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNDER GOD. Give everyone a shot, and let them give it their best. PERIOD. The other side does not understand this, and that is why I do not care what they have to say about us.
FD: I'm all in for Cruz, because I think he both enunciates and demonstrates "modern conservatism" as it is and should be, not as Ms. Marcotte thinks it is and shouldn't be.
Insightful.
Hillary probably has trouble wiping her own azz, let alone wiping the floor with Trump.
Where in the h-LL was Carter 4 years before when RR received a 45 minute plus standing ovation at the convention on live TV????
Sorry, but we’re past the “Trump is Easier to Beat” meme - otherwise the Washington Post wouldn’t be running an editorial DEMANDING that the Republicans stop Trump. Not to mention other Democrats denouncing Trump non-stop.
But whatever, you guys can keep trying.
Yep and in June 2015 67% of Republican voters said they would never vote for him.
Clinton and Trump have about the same negatives. Trump’s polling numbers indicate that people hate him until they get to know him. Once he started campaigning in earnest his negatives with GOP voters went down. They are at about 20% right now.
Clinton numbers went the other way. The more she campaigned, the less people liked her. She went from overall positive to about the same negatives as Trump.
So Clinton has no ability to correct her negatives while Trump does during the campaing. That means the ONLY chance Clinton has is to make voters hate Trump more their her.
Who is best equipped to take on the fully Clinton Hate machine in the media? So far the only one I have seen take on, and beat, the media is Trump.
I know why you have such bad Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You have a Spanish screen name. Thus, you are an illegal immigrant. Donald Trump will FedEx yer ass back to Guatamala.
Salon is such a cesspool it is impossible to glean ANY intel from it.
Advice from Salon?
Insane.
Trump is easier Hillary to beat because he’s the only candidate the GOP establishment will run a 3rd party candidate against and throw the race to Hillary. We are screwed unless we get behind Trump ASAP and crush the GOPe. They are at war with us. Sadly, Cruz supporters can’t see that.
And I actually thought that 4 years of Obama and this country would take a hard rt turn.....
You said...
“Clinton numbers went the other way. The more she campaigned, the less people liked her”
Lol
That does seem to hold true for her
Do you see that briar patch too, Johnnie?
We Don't Care!
Doesn't Matter!
Smart Business Practice!
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.