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.
I do not doubt that Cruz would have had a hard road to 270 though I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are. But I think Trump will have just as hard a slog as Cruz would have.
“You mean political gridlock or political revolution? “
Actually, I was referring to American and French Revolutions. America’s rebellion against the Monarchy evolved into a positive pursuit of Enlightenment ideals. Ultimately, America replaced the Devine Right with individual rights. The French Revolution, while couched in similar rhetoric, was primarily a negative response to a failed monarchy. Condemnation of the Monarchy provided an impetus for rebellion, but metastasized into the raison d’etre for revolution. Patriotism was usurped by partisanship.
Our nation avoided this path, but now faces a future without foundation. Washington faced down the demons of despotism with a keen understanding of man’s sinful nature.
dang smartphone doesnt know how to spell.
but it is funny
Don’t you know there are some on this forum who believe that you shouldn’t post anything that plants seeds of doubt against their favorite candidate?
See their seething anger? The anger they don’t recognize in themselves but point out in those who disagree with them?
Trump is scary to some of us, looking much like a tyrant who perhaps a majority of voters thinks will somehow be benevolent.
Then we’re left with a couple of three candidates that don’t have the eligibility, or charisma, or competitive viciousness to compete with a deal maker who will do whatever it takes to accomplish what he sets out to do.
Neither Broom Hillary nor Donald Trump appear to me to be certain to nominate conservative Supremes(arguably the most critical deed of the next Presidency), and I’ll admit I’m scared to death of either becoming POTUS.
That is one aggravating POS.
Nobody shouldn't confuse the cleverly-crafted script of a "reality TV" show with actual real-world reality.
The "firing" that Trump did on TV was worked out in advance by the script writers. He was playing a role, as were the people he "fired." Moreover, both Trump and his "firees" performed their roles with great skill, even with brilliance.
In any case, I submit that only people living in a TV-induced imaginary world can believe that a Prez Trump could simply snap his fingers and fire thousands of civil servants. Just ain't gonna happen, no more than he could ever force Mexico to build a concrete wall that's 40 feet tall and 2000 miles long.
Nobody should confuse . . .
>> Cutting the Fed Gov, alone, will make Trump a GREAT president <<
Can anybody actually cite a credible plan by Trump for doing same?
Or must we simply believe any and all assertions that issue forth from your GREAT leader?
Exactly. Nail on the head!
To paraphrase Trump's former best bud, Nancy P,
You've gotta elect me to find out what's in my plan.
If you had an eartick, you might be cranky, too. : )
Sad... you have been warned. Keep walking ... you will soon go over the cliff to your doom.
Deranged rubbish. Why would you even post this crap?
...another Trumpster in denial.
Yes, but the hysteria seems to infect only about 35% of likely GOP primary voters.
In other words, it's not as if an hysterical-but-minority movement could burn a Reichstag, overthrow an anticommunist government, elect a Duce, etc.
Oh, wait . . . .
GO TED GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Piss off, Brit. Deal with your own country’s problems instead of dumping your garbage over here.
NO need .. it's come to us right here without moving.
Trump is good for America. For all Americans.
Now they celebrate. Our Republic is lost.
I even read several days ago a post from a freeper saying (paraphrasing here)
they were so in love with Trump they may need to quit work to be able to stay home and watch his live television appearances after he is elected"
Talk about cult following.
You seem to project alot.
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.