Trump Derangement Syndrome Turns Into Treason - The real threat we face is not from Trump's rhetoric

Frontpage ^ | February 29, 2016 | Daniel Greenfield

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The stakes in 2016 are huge and the party is fractured. The rhetoric reflects a Trump Derangement Syndrome in which Trump is either a monster or a savior, instead of a politician. On the left, Bush Derangement Syndrome expressed itself in the conviction that he was unalterably and uniquely worse than every other president and would get around to declaring martial law and ruling forever.

The danger of exaggeration is that previously unacceptable views suddenly become acceptable. Bush Derangement Syndrome made it acceptable for Democrats to descend into open treason by making common cause with Saddam Hussein, the Sunni terrorist groups that evolved into ISIS and Assad.

Bush Derangement Syndrome made him seem so terrible that every other evil could be justified by comparison. The exaggeration of Trump Derangement Syndrome is doing that all over again.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is driving some conservatives to call for destroying the Republican Party and conservatism, and even to usher in eight years of left-wing rule, in order to stop Trump.

Under pressure from Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton is now adopting positions well to the left of Obama. On racial issues, she’s already more extreme than he is. Ponder that for a minute. Both Democratic candidates are now airing blatantly racist views about white privilege. Sanders and Clinton are also scrambling to get to the left of Obama on terrorism, socialized medicine and a raft of other issues.

The switch from “Anyone But Hillary” to “Anyone But Trump” is a sign of fundamentally misplaced priorities.

Political campaigns can get ugly and Trump’s style is, at times, to get as nasty as possible, but it’s a sign of misplaced insider priorities to allow personal animus to matter more than the war against the left. It’s not unreasonable for some conservatives to be angry at Trump and his tactics. It is unreasonable to let that anger turn into a petulance that would let the left rule the nation for another eight years.

We are not in the conservative movement to settle our personal scores. Stopping Trump at any cost is not acceptable just as stopping Romney or McCain at any cost was not considered to be acceptable. Conservatives cannot always have conservative candidates or achieve conservative policy goals. But they can still prevent the left from winning a complete victory in any given election.

Bush Derangement Syndrome began when Democrats decided not to accept the results of an election. Everything else emerged naturally, logically and treasonously from that conclusion. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a preemptive call not to accept the results of political primaries in the Republican Party.

Proponents of the “Anybody But Trump” school argue that his nomination would be catastrophic for conservatism. That may be true, but conservatism as a national program is more likely to survive Trump than it is Hillary or Sanders.

There are important lessons in the rise of Trump. Learning those lessons would make conservatives stronger, not weaker. And refusing to learn those lessons will not make conservatism any stronger.

The most basic of those lessons is to fight hard. Voters choose fighters over ideological purists. That’s human nature and conservatives, unlike liberals, have always recognized the reality of human nature. If conservatives want to win ideological victories, they have to fight harder politically, but without losing sight of the things that they are fighting for above the ordinary pettiness of the political contest.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is obsessive and unhealthy. Critics match what they see as Trump’s inflated sense of self-importance with an equal conviction of his importance as a destroyer. But Trump cannot destroy the conservative movement. Only conservatives can do that.

Bush Derangement Syndrome destroyed the Democratic Party. Even moderate Democrats were suddenly willing to make common cause with the most radical elements of the left and Islam out of the conviction that President Bush had to be stopped at any cost. They lost sight of the real threats to the country, handed over their political party to leftist radicals and billionaires, and gave us Obama.

Trump Derangement Syndrome could give the country eight years of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Or someone even worse. Conservatives understand human weaknesses and the importance of overcoming them. Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a conservative response. And if it allows the left to win, then it becomes treason against conservative ideals and the conservative movement.

[Teacher317]

Trump decided to run shortly after Barry’s last victory. He knew it would be a disaster. Trump knew we were headed for disaster and assembled this campaign early.

All knowing and all seeing Trump, coming down to save us all from ourselves. *eyeroll*

[VerySadAmerican]

To all of you who say Trump is a democrat or gave to democrats please remember this. He’s a real estate developer. When you’re in the big leagues you better give to EVERYONE who may be able to help you down the road.

I hope there still aren’t voters out there, and freepers, who think the business world is one big pile of marsh mellows. If you want to do business with the big boys you got to play the game. That means you have to grease some palms of people you despise. But, you get the buildings built and people put to work.

And one other thing, Trump scratched some backs with a back scratcher that he paid for. The politicians scratch each others’ backs with scratchers that we, the taxpayers, bought.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Why would Bill Clinton tell that to Donald Trump, knowing that his wife would be running for the nomination under the Democratic Party banner and against the GOP nominee? “

I'm not either for or against Trump at this point, but addressing your question, there is absolutely nothing in it for Trump to become a stooge of the Clintons. Further, if he were, he's sure doing a poor job of propping her up. He's been as much or more outwardly critical of her as any other candidate.

[Teacher317]

Mr. Trump will be able to follow the stated political path he has set for himself and for America. He will protect and support the Constitution , and so there should be few concerns on that score.

He has already mentioned that he will use the Obama Method of a pen and a phone. His ego is his motivator, not the Constitution. He is out to prove that he is the best businessman ever, not that he is a Constitutional scholar or devotee. He will not have the patience for waiting for Congress' "permission" as he "gets things done". You are beyond naive if you see no Constitutional concerns in a Trump administration... and your firm conviction, based on zero evidence, is simply further proof that you are emoting and hoping, not analyzing and extrapolating.

[BobL]

I hate to break the news to you, but this article is PRO-TRUMP.

You need to be more careful...

[LMAO]

You said...
“For me, being told to vote for Trump (or I’m a “traitor”) is on par with Nancy Peolsi telling the country that “You’ll have to vote for the bill, to find out what is in the bill.”

People who were paying attention KNEW what was in the bill.

And they voted NO.”

Good analogy.
And anyone who warned about the lies and danger of Obamacare were shot down and called liars and wanting people to die in the streets(just as Trump has said). Well, we all know everything the critics warned would happen is happening. And the mandate remains unpopular. The same mandate Trump said he liked.

I see alot of Trump supporters molding him into what they believe he will be. And they ignore many of his past statements and positions. Some in the not to distant past. Even on immigration, he’s mixed.

[jonrick46]

I got the words from a speech President Ronald Reagan gave at CPAC, Feb 26, 1982. I got it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVqqyLt8Y4

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I KNOW what this article is, thank you.

Ponder this:

Mark Steyn:

......"~One policy note: Trump has now pledged to strengthen the libel laws to favor the plaintiff in suits against the media. So [Trump's] Tweet siding with Michael E Mann against me does not appear to be an accidental aberration. Thus in November America seems likely to have a choice between two candidates who want to rein in the First Amendment: I didn't see that one coming, although,what with his years of delaying tactics and general obstructionism, evidently Mann did. Judging from responses to Senator Ben Sasse's Twitter feed, principled supporters of free speech are somewhat thin on the ground.

~Ultimately, Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party has only been possible because of the rigid inflexibility of America's party system. The two-party one-party state, unchanged in 150 years, is unique in the western world, where parties are born and die according to whether there's a market for them. If a genuine market in parties were possible here, this season there would be probably be a nationalist party, a conservative party, and a soft-right party - and, over on the other side, a corporatist party and a socialist party. In the British House of Commons, there are currently 11 parties represented, plus four independents. In the Canadian House of Commons, there are five parties. In New Zealand, seven. When The Washington Post's Michael Gerson warns that a Trump nomination would break apart the Republican Party, the implication is that the health of the Republic depends on maintaining the same two parties of the Civil War era for all eternity. Why?"

[Teacher317]

Your point is well-made, that businesses often promote both sides, to be successful. However, it is Trump's own words and actions that show him to be socially liberal. His donations to such candidates and causes can be excused as the cost of doing business in NYC, but not his words and actions outside of that.

Has he ever once made any statement that was pro-life, or against abortion?
Has he ever once made any statement that was pro-Christian rights, or against gay marriage?
Has he ever once made any statement that was pro-Israel or anti-Palestine?
Has he ever once made a statement that was for limited government powers?
Has he ever once made a statement that was against race-based laws like Affirmative Action?

NO.

That is where Trump is. He is NOT on the political right. He is an exceptional businessman and an opportunist... and yet half here treat him like an improved version of Jefferson. He waves the US flag proudly, and that is the main difference between himself and the modern Democrat party. We used to need more than that to declare someone "right-wing".

[MayflowerMadam]

Honey, you’re not paying attention.

[LMAO]

You said...
“He has already mentioned that he will use the Obama Method of a pen and a phone. His ego is his motivator, not the Constitution. He is out to prove that he is the best businessman ever, not that he is a Constitutional scholar or devotee. He will not have the patience for waiting for Congress’ “permission” as he “gets things done”. You are beyond naive if you see no Constitutional concerns in a Trump administration... and your firm conviction, based on zero evidence, is simply further proof that you are emoting and hoping, not analyzing and extrapolating.”

I'm hearing many Trump supporters express support for Trump to do or things he says that if a democrat did or say them, they'd be crying foul. One told me that Trump will have to take more power temporarily and when things get “fixed” we can go back to a Constitutional Republic. One, that won't happen. Two, BHO and the left used the financial crisis as an excuse to grow the power of the government. When I hear or read a statement from a GOP candidate, I imagine what would be my reaction if a Democrat candidate said the same thing. If I wouldn't like it from the mouth of a Democrat, then it isn't fine if a Republican states the same thing. Perfect example is Trump's desire to open libel laws to sue the press. Many of his supporters support that. But what would be their reaction if Hillary said the same words but substituted Rush or Free republic for the NYTs and Washington Post. I'm safe in saying that many of Trump's supporters wouldn't like to hear that from Hillary.

[LMAO]

You said...
“He waves the US flag proudly, and that is the main difference between himself and the modern Democrat party.”

That’s true. I don’t doubt Trump’s love of country. I don’t think he sees America as the problem like the current occupant.

[BobL]

It looks like Mann is able to sue anyway, so Steyn won’t be affected.

The people that will be affected are the Mainstream Media operations, like ABC/NBC/CBS - and sorry, I want them HELD ACCOUNTABLE, for once.

I still remember how they used Dan Rather to essentially attempt a coup in this country in 2004. CBS should not only be sued for that, people should have been put in jail. Until that happens, I’m with Trump.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

Eyedigress, would -you- enter into a business partnership with Trump based only on a handshake?

If you believe that "Trump is a man of his word" I don't see how the answer can be anything other than "Yes".

[Ouderkirk]

I don’t think this worked out the way Bubba wanted.

Bubba wanted someone who would go along with the uni-party line, not someone who would seek to smash it.

[McCarthysGhost]

Trump University???
How ‘bout senators who voted for a bill that facilitated the transfer of 150,000,000,000 dollars to the ayatollahs over in Iran which will be used to kill and maim people and perhaps even someday nuke a city?
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic can be fun.

[chrisnj]

Can anyone honestly say he/she has never had a change of mind on issues?
Especially when we are young or busy working, raising a family, we don’t quite pay attention, and/or don’t quite understand many issues. However, we do form some kind of ‘opinions’ regarding various issues and those opinions are changed throughout our lifetime.
For instance, I used to think abortion was not so horrible to prevent an unwanted child from a lifetime of suffering and abuses. I have since changed my mind - who are we to take an innocent life?
I used to think communism was not so bad - it was more equitable and there are less corruption. I have changed my mind when I learned that it is but a ‘redistribution of wealth’ by the powerful, corrupt ‘leaders’ who keep much of the wealth for themselves, and do everything to suppress people...
I guess if my voters learned that I used to think that way I would be shunned and nothing I can do will convince them of my current stand on issues?
Another example -
My brother-in-law was a die-hard Democrat. The last few years even he has changed - he has worked to help elect Republicans, and he is now a supporter of Trump.
He has witnessed how the Dem’s policies, especially their non-enforcement of Immigration laws, have destroyed USA. He sees the potential of a Trump president doing something to reverse the tide.....
We really ought to be strategic and be flexible - understand that there is no perfect candidate. TO have an imperfect president who just might stop the massive invasion of illegal aliens IS STILL BETTER THAN LETTING THE RATS/socialists/communists continue their destruction!

HOW CAN ANYONE ON OUR SIDE LET HILLARY OR SANDERS OR BIDEN RULE AGAIN? IF YOU STAY HOME YOU LET THEM WIN!

[Candor7]

Our greatest presidents were just like Trump. They were called to duty from their apolitical lives by circumstance and love of Country. You are offended by Trump's ego but not your own , and wish to impose a will of logic and extrapolation so as to elect what amounts to comparatively inexperienced gurly-men whose testicles have only partially descended? Thats idiocy.

My second pick for the nomination was Fiorina. A truly great American.Never served a day in elective office.

Now if you cannot get off your purity kick, you will find yourself very much alone. Our greatest presidents were not political class animals who dedicated their lives to political careers. They worked at their politics part time when needed , and were quite content to occupy themselves with their own domestic business interests most of the time. And so those great ones had the skills which were evolved from living outside of politics. Today this had been mostly lost. Trump is actually in this tradition, a self made man, and one who knows how to manage large structures of hierarchy, and who is called by the People to execute a representative task. This is in the greatest traditions of America.

Since Trump is not a political career animal like all the others, he does not pass your scrutiny. As a matter of fact, those who pass your scrutiny can do so only because you buy the image they have created for you. They are manifest perfection , have no stink and are actually so pristine as to be unreal, not human, but true members of a political aristocracy. They are no better than ordinary Americans but have led you and a mistaken cadre of caterwauling others to think so.

I prefer the stinky human being who has the skill and heart to engage the presidency in a transcendent manner, in the tradition of American warriorship. And that is Donald Trump.

You can take your so called purity of purpose and stick it. I want a good president, not a saint.And most of America, including latinos, women and some democrats, any blue dogs that are still not gone agley into utopian Obama nationalist socialism, feel exactly the same way. Watch Trumps numbers soar and then you and those like you can continue to tremble as you do now.

Mr. Trump is an American Winston Churchill, more than adequately equipped to do the job that circumstances and duty have called him to perform.Your efforts to prevent that are futile.He will represent ALL Americans. That's why he will win.

Trump has no political past or record. America is going to nominate him.And that is a very good thing.

The resemblence is unavoidably striking, grim determination, and thats not what you call "ego.":

[central_va]

If "movement conservatism" wasn't in bed with anti American Free Traders glowBULLists then we'd have a conservative president now.

Somehow corporate fascistic need for cheap labor superseded and co-opted pro American Nationalist "conservatism" a long time ago. Voting conservative now means voting against your own self economic interest and survival.