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.
Go back to pulling the wings off of flies, you're better at it than thinking.
“You’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?”
“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.”
This is moronic !
We don’t know exactly what we will get with Trump so let’s give Hillary those Supreme Court appointments ?
Sounds more like realistic assessment, not praise.
Cruz shall be VERY lucky, should he retain his Senate seat, now that Texans know exactly who and what he is.
You need to face the reality, that Cruz shan't be the GOP nominee for president.
The anti-Trump crowd loves to say we don’t know what Trump will do, as if they have a better alternative. The senators have both turned their backs on the Tea Party that brought them to the dance.
So, we should pick from two senators, owned by donors, proven to be soft on immigration, and not a single accomplishment to their names besides making speeches and pushing red or green buttons?
You are, of course, 100% correct.
No Trump fan here, but I would never choose Hillary over Trump in a million years. In the primary, you vote your heart, in the general you vote the lesser of two evils. It has ever been thus. To Macchiavellianly Hillary will unite the right is silly. If an America-hating Marxist like Obama couldn’t do that, why would one expect Hillary to do so. I say, hold the nose and vote for Trump. I hope my expectations will be proven wrong and he matures and becomes another Reagan. At the very least, maybe he will take immigration enforcement a bit more seriously than our current and prior presidents. Trying to look on the bright side here.
-—It will be a good day when half the federal workforce is fired. —
Wow...you really think Trump will fire half the workforce...that is delusional...
at best he will freeze hiring...
.
-—It will be a good day when half the federal workforce is fired. —
Wow...you really think Trump will fire half the workforce...that is delusional...
at best he will freeze hiring...
.
Yes, there are still probably some in Texas who blindly still support him; however that number shrinks daily !
>> There is little question Trump would abuse power.
The little questions of desperate little minds.
Apparently they don't know much.
You are not seeing the gist of the writers point.
He’s looking big picture and long term results of the two potential administrations, and then looking at it like you would a damage assessment.
His primary worry is the size and scope of government, which is the primary focus of most if not all conservatives.
The fact that you and other trumpers don’t even see it or acknowledge it is difficult for me to get my arms around.
To me it appears to be mass hysteria. Caused in part by viewing this contest with only the “right brain”, which is the emotionally laden part of the brain that is without any logic.
It is what it is...I am not even going to argue it. I recognize that I cannot counter it with logic or facts. Nobody can do that.
You and the author have convinced me. I’m going to vote for a treasonous scandal-magnet for president instead of a guy who has built a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
That way the next president can appoint Huma, Wasserman-Schultz, Cheryl Mills, and Elizabeth Warren to the SC.
Hillary only killed 4 people?
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/04/the-hillary-clinton-deadpool/
He probably won’t get to fire them because they said they would quit if he becomes POTUS. Probably going to quit before people find out what they’ve been up to. I would investigate each and every one of them.
Except the author really makes no logical arguments here. They simply wave their hands and cast many assumptions without coherent reasons for why anyone should believe any of this is so.
The best they can proffer is some hope that Hillary will somehow remain gridlocked by a GOP-controlled Congress and thus not be able to get anything done. Yet Obama has already empirically demonstrated that he can get what he wants, GOP Congress or not. And the GOP Congress demonstrates time and again that they’ll effectively do nothing to stop him.
I doubt a Hillary presidency will be any different from this sort of pattern. There’s also no telling if the GOP will be able to retain control of Congress come 2018 and beyond.
So, yeah. I’d take my chances pulling the lever for Trump > Hillary.
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.