No, I Don't Believe Donald Trump Is a Conservative

This short essay is in response to a friend who asked me to explain how Donald Trump is unacceptable to "movement conservatives."

Let's first acknowledge that many Trump supporters don't even claim to be conservative -- though others do -- and Trump himself is rather dismissive on the point, so they may consider this column a meaningless academic exercise. But a Trump supporter asked, so I'll try to explain.

Because I think my questioner was inquiring mostly about issues, I won't delve into Trump's apparent lack of presidential temperament and public deportment -- as reflected mostly in the debates and his speeches -- other than to suggest that they betray values that don't strike me as particularly conservative.

On the issues, Trump appears to have no ideological core. He can't sufficiently define "conservative" and, when pressed, says that even Ronald Reagan wasn't that conservative. Trump cites Reagan's earlier affiliation with the Democratic Party as his excuse for having supported liberal causes and politicians all his life, though unlike Reagan, Trump can never point to a personal conversion. He prefers to work with the uncompromising, extremist left, represented by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, rather than defeat it.

But having no internal conservative antenna, what goals would he seek to achieve through his legendary negotiating wizardry? Indeed, many conservatives sense that Trump is not one of them because while he champions national sovereignty and patriotism, he evinces no understanding of conservative ideology and much less of the Constitution and its design of limited government. Under some political pressure, Trump promises to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, but there is no indication he has any real commitment to this vital principle.

It's not just that Trump, for a presidential candidate, is conspicuously ill-informed on political science and policy but also that he has no abiding allegiance to conservative policy solutions, as evidenced by his flip-flops, which are wider-ranging and more frequent than those of other notorious flippers. Even on his signature issue of immigration, he's exhibited a surprising openness to soften his positions. In any event, he is easily less reliable on this issue than Ted Cruz.

Movement conservatives are also uneasy with Trump's conflation of "Art of the Deal" business practices with conservative governance. Trump's success in creating thousands of jobs signals to conservatives that he is a friend of business, but it doesn't assure them that he comprehends the government's role (or lack thereof) in creating a job climate. Presidential statecraft isn't the same as private entrepreneurship. Government doesn't "create jobs"; it enacts policies and laws to remove the shackles of government so that the private sector can flourish on its own power. A private CEO is under different constraints than the president. Though Trump's acolytes boast that he "knows how to get things done," he won't -- and shouldn't -- enjoy the same latitude to operate as president.

Trump seems disinclined to laissez faire and too comfortable with a major role for the federal government on economic issues. More troubling is his support for tariffs and protectionism, which could significantly damage our economy. Tied to this issue is one of the most distressing developments of this campaign: the emergence of class warfare themes emanating from the "right."

Trump gives lip service to reducing spending and balancing the budget but offers few specifics; see his hollow promise to end fraud, waste and abuse. Experts believe that his fiscal plan would lead us into further debt. Having been coached to prepare a tax plan palatable to conservatives, he has made some progress here, but he is disturbingly open to punishing the "wealthy" through progressive tax policies -- which would add more fuel to class tensions and be counterproductive for the economy.

Trump stubbornly refuses to reform Social Security, which is on a collision course with national insolvency and cannot be "saved" by robust economic growth as Trump glibly contends. We have more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities with our entitlement programs, and no marginally informed person believes we can simply grow out of this inevitable train wreck. In refusing to acknowledge that or put forth a plan, Trump has sided with demagogic liberals.

It's not just on economic issues that Trump betrays an alarming lack of knowledge. Indeed, Trump substitutes slogans for serious policy proposals on many issues, and conservatives instinctively know that he doesn't get it -- that he's not even interested in getting it.

Accordingly, Trump's promises to make America great again and to restore winning are pathetically devoid of specific plans to achieve those goals. No presidential candidate in my lifetime has demonstrated less command of the issues than Trump, and his lack of intellectual curiosity and interest cannot be adequately remedied by his selecting smart advisers. We need someone at the helm who has an understanding of important issues and who will be guided by conservative instincts. Instead, Trump has shown a tendency to favor strong government action to get "results" -- more government, more authoritarianism, not less. This is a serious danger signal to conservatives.

On a smattering of other issues, Trump's conservative bona fides are in doubt, from affirmative action to the Second Amendment to universal health care to religious liberty to the Iran nuclear deal to his professed neutrality on Israel and Palestine to his dubious support of life, including his endorsement of federal funding for America's premier abortion factory, Planned Parenthood. I realize he and his supporters vehemently deny some of these criticisms, but I've heard his disconcerting statements on them, even if he later modified or retracted them.

Trump has been brilliant in hijacking anti-government sentiment and in amplifying his immigration and trade message through manipulating the press, and I admit he might seek to honor some of his basic campaign promises. But we have no assurance beyond these few issues that Trump would behave or govern like a limited-government conservative, and because of his practiced vacillation and refusal to commit to many other issues, he'd have a mandate to do what he darn well pleases -- and that's more than a little scary to me.

It concerns me that after Americans had finally united in strong opposition to Barack Obama's leftist record, the movement was co-opted by a populist with a super-amped megaphone. The solutions to America's problems are not some hodgepodge of policy goals fueled by nationalistic pride that is untethered to principles of limited government. You don't restore America's greatness by burning the house down, especially when you can remodel it from the inside out through a rededication to America's founding principles and constitutional conservatism.

I could better understand the support behind Trump if there weren't an infinitely superior candidate in Ted Cruz, who would specifically address the problems that plague us -- and without abandoning the principles that made America unique in the first place.

‘And he has consistently been a big government statist ...’

Poll: 25 percent of federal employees would quit under Trump presidency
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3391513/posts

The moment he wins, a 25% drop before he lifts a finger. Oh, that’s a bigtime ‘statist’.

Another thing about calling Trump a ‘big government statist’ ...

It really makes sense that the leftist rent-a-goons would violently protest and blockade roads to stop someone who would be on their side, right?

He must really be loved by unions for example. And federal workers. And corporate welfare lobbyists. And Soros. And Bill Ayers.

I don’t normally enter Cruz-birther debates anymore for one reason only —

Cruz supporters are so stubborn that they refuse to see reason and only support him that much more. Polarization. In other words, I surrendered to their foolishness.

But for you to be called a fool for stating the truth, wintertime? That’s just too much, especially when David Limbaugh essentially accuses Trump of having no moral compass. So the Perfect Storm summons me back to this issue.

Cruz eligibility has courts on his side which impresses no one with any common sense. When do courts care about the Constitution?

“If Cruz’s parents declared US citizenship for him in Canada, then he has a Canadian-issued document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.....the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate.” — liz

In no way can Cruz have a ‘natural born status’ according to original intent, and no amendment in the US Constitution ever adjusted that status. The ‘rights’ of a mother have nothing to do with a child’s eligibility to run.

Before David Limbaugh declared political ‘war’ against the party’s clear front runner, he should first chart out a plan in his mind — who should beat the front runner and how?

Should it be Cruz?

How? Through a floor fight at the convention. That’s been the obvious plan to anyone giving this campaign any thought. It will divide the party, so Cruz had better be one heck of a unifier.

The other question David L should have asked: “Is Cruz even eligible?”

The courts say ‘yes’ so far.

But is he eligible? Regardless of courts, how can a floor fight convention challenger unify the party if he has no natural born status?

In other words, I’m sorely disappointed in David Limbaugh. He’s a smart man, but of all the fools on this thread, he takes the cake!

Yawn. Big talk. No action. Probably has another book to sell. He can sit back and judge and spout his talking points all he wants. Does it bring industry and jobs back to this country? No. Does it seal our borders? No. Does it fix illegal immigration and the fact that working Americans struggle to pay their bills and pay high insurance costs? No. Does it stop ISIS and the attacks? No. Both Limbaughs are nothing but talking points now..with agendas. Their parents would not be impressed these days. :(

Accordingly, Trump's promises to make America great again and to restore winning are pathetically devoid of specific plans to achieve those goals.

What a blasé article. It's the biggest dogmatic purist hand-wringing fest I've ever seen in my life.

Trump's policy positions on immigration, taxation, trade, defense, and education, for instance, are each eminently conservative.

As for "details", there are actually plenty of those as well, but Donald Trump is about broad strokes, not minutae, and there' absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Details can be hammered out or left to subordinate wonks who specialize in that sort of thing.

A good Chief Executive doesn't get overly preoccupied with details; he or she relegates when needed, and, confidently and shrewdly leads the ship of state through uncertain waters in such a way as to best serve the interests of the nation and its people.

Once again, the hysterical elite are so very comfortable and content within the Established system, that they simply can't see the forest for the trees when there's a Revolution brewing.

Donald Trump will make a great President.

Go, Trump, go!

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.