Posted on 03/22/2016 5:14:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
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.
| Yes, and there's a very good reason that Cruz and Rubio rallied behind this Conservative "label" or "cult". Because they have nothing left to talk about! There are very few real accomplishments in Cruz's short career. What has he done? He stood up to oppose Obamacare. Great, we applaud him. But where are the true accomplishments that prove what a great manager he would be? But, but, but...he gives a great Conservative speech! A man like Trump has accomplished great things for the 40 years he's been in the public eye. He's proven that he's a natural leader and manager of a $10 billion organization that he owns lock, stock and barrel. And Trump is the one who's been fighting political correctness, proposing bold new policies like the Wall and Muslim moratorium. If it weren't for Trump, conservatism's voice would not be nearly as strong this cycle. But David Limbaugh mentions none of that. He's the brother of a high-priest of the Conservative cult and he feels it's his job to edddddducate the low-information, dimwits who like Trump. |
Yet Mr. Trump showed leadership this morning after what had happened in Belgian.
You got it. Trump may not fit some people's vision of purity, but he's a tough fighter, and I believe he will do what he says about curtailing immigration.
If we allow the demographics of the US to shift any further, then NO CONSERVATIVE WILL EVER GET ELECTED EVER AGAIN.
Trump has not “historically contributed equally to candidates from both parties.” He began to contribute heavily to Republicans in 2012, in order to prepare for this campaign. There is evidence he wants the GOP nomination, there is evidence he claims to be conservative, and there is evidence he is a life-long liberal.
Some of Trump’s donation history:
4/7/10 $1,000 Schumer, Charles E (D); 2/18/10 $2,000 Weiner, Anthony D (D); 12/11/09 $1,600 Schumer, Charles E (D); 12/11/09 $400 Schumer; $2,400 Crist, Charlie (3); 10/16/09 $2,400 Crist, Charlie (3); 8/18/09 $1,000 Maloney, Carolyn B (D); 8/11/09 $2,000 Nelson, Bill (D); 5/20/09 $2,000 Schumer, Charles E (D); 3/26/09 $2,400 Reid, Harry (D); 4/30/08 $6,900 Andrews, Robert E (D); 3/31/08 $1,300 Specter, Arlen (R); 3/28/08 $5,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D); 1/31/08 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D); 12/31/07 $1,050 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D); 12/15/07 $1,000 Maffei, Dan (D); 12/11/07 $1,050 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D); 11/12/07 $600 Clinton, Hillary (D); 10/15/07 $1,000 Specter, Arlen (R); 9/24/07 $2,300 Weiner, Anthony D (D); 9/5/07 $1,000 Rocque, Michael R (R); 8/27/07 $2,300 Rangel, Charles B (D); 8/27/07 $2,300 Rangel, Charles B (D); 5/2/07 $1,000 Menendez, Robert (D); 5/2/07 $1,000 Durbin, Dick (D); 3/31/07 $1,700 Clinton, Hillary (D); 3/31/07 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D); 11/1/06 $200 Clinton, Hillary (D); 11/1/06 $2,100 Clinton, Hillary (D); 9/26/06 $7,500 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D); 9/12/06 $1,000 Maloney, Carolyn B (D); 6/19/06 $15,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D); 6/19/06 $20,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D); 5/31/06 $1,000 Menendez, Robert (D); 3/1/06 $2,100 Rangel, Charles B (D); 3/1/06 $1,900 Rangel, Charles B (D); 3/1/06 $5,000 National Leadership PAC (D); 12/15/05 $1,000 Ford, Harold E Jr (D); 12/2/05 $1,000 Clinton, Hillary (D); 9/30/05 $900 Clinton, Hillary (D); 8/31/05 $1,000; Lieberman, Joe (I); 8/17/05 $1,000 National Leadership PAC (D); 6/16/05 $500 Kennedy, Patrick J (D); 4/13/05 $2,000 Lautenberg, Frank (D); 4/13/05 $5,000 New Jersey First (D); 4/13/05 $1,000 Lautenberg, Frank (D); 4/13/05 $2,000 Lautenberg, Frank (D); 4/6/05 $5,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D); 3/28/05 $1,000 Berkley, Shelley (D); 3/23/05 $1,000 Clinton, Hillary (D); 9/28/04 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D); 1/7/04 $1,000 Schumer, Charles E (D); 12/26/03 $2,000 Daschle, Tom (D); 12/26/03 $2,000 Daschle, Tom (D); 12/19/03 $1,000 Kennedy, Edward M (D); 10/28/03 $1,000 Dodd, Chris (D); 9/30/03 $2,000 Rangel, Charles B (D); 9/30/03 $500 Rangel, Charles B (D); 9/16/03 $500 Specter, Arlen (R); 6/24/03 $2,000 Kerry, John (D); 6/2/03 $1,000 Kennedy, Patrick J (D); 3/21/03 $2,000 Reid, Harry (D); 3/21/03 $2,000 Reid, Harry (D); 10/28/02 $1,000 Gephardt, Richard A (D); 10/25/02 $1,000 National Leadership PAC (D); 10/8/02 $25,000 DSCC/Non-Federal Unicorp Assoc (D); 10/4/02 $1,000 Parker, Susan D (D); 9/5/02 $1,000 Dodd, Chris (D); 8/19/02 $1,000 Shriver, Mark Kennedy (D); 8/7/02 $1,000 New Jersey United (D); 5/2/02 $1,000 Rangel, Charles B (D); 5/1/02 $1,000 Clinton, Hillary (D); 12/31/01 $1,000 Biden, Joseph R Jr (D); 12/28/01 $1,000 Hollings, Fritz (D); 12/17/01 $1,000 Bowles, Erskine B (D); 8/31/01 $1,000 Dodd, Chris (D); 6/29/01 $1,000 Rangel, Charles B (D); 6/2/01 $1,000 Kennedy, Patrick J (D); 3/28/01 $1,000 Baucus, Max (D); 12/15/00 $500 Kerry, John (D); 11/13/00 $5,000 DSCC/Non-Federal Individual (D); 11/6/00 $5,000 DCCC/Non-Federal Account 5 (D); 6/7/00 $1,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D); 5/23/00 $750 Schumer, Charles E (D).
Romney sought to distance himself from Reagan during an Oct. 25, 1994, debate with Edward Kennedy, the veteran Democratic senator he was trying to unseat in Massachusetts.
Kennedy said Romney was trying to take the U.S. back to the “Reagan-Bush years,” a reference to Reagan’s vice president and his White House successor for one term, George H.W. Bush.
“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush,” Romney said. “I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Romney denounces Reagan-Bush and will do everything in his power to remove them. He claims he wasn't even a Republican but a independent
Well said! Applause applause.
Also see my post #98.
Let’s support action and less endless ideological purity. So what if Trump isn’t a “conservative?”. He will do what needs to be done because he loves America.
Even strict Constitutionalists will tell you the Constitution does not define what is “Natural Born”.
His Dad was Cuban and Ted was born in Canada. That does not automatically translate into an American Citizen.
The only time a single parent applies is when they are in the military or working for the U.S. Embassy. Neither of which was Cruz's mom.
Including Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz gets burned by the birther fires he stoked
I tend to agree with Trump that Reagan wasn't all that conservative. In today's world, he likely wouldn't pass muster with ideological conservatives. And his record, while better than most, wasn't always purely and ideologically conservative. Reagan also often was a deal maker.
I believe Trump will govern ... randomly.
Which will be a huge improvement for conservatives.
We’ll randomly win half the time, instead of being defeated 100% of the time.
| ...Trump is merely the 1st wave of a multi wave assault.... Without Trump to lead the way, the Cruz boat would of either been ignored because it was irrelevant, or been shelled into oblivion by the $10s of millions of GOPE attack ads. Beautiful metaphor and analysis! For your excellent commentary, I bestow on you the H. L. Mencken Memorial Distinguished Political Punditry Award. Well done! |
I think I'd like somebody who I could feel confident that he would put America first, and who understands that the viability of the American middle-class is necessary for the future of America.
“if we allow the demographics of the US to shift any further, then NO CONSERVATIVE WILL EVER GET ELECTED EVER AGAIN...”
This was so well written that it must be repeated loudly and often.
Also see my post #98.
This fact is the absolute priority for this election cycle and Trump is the only one who can accomplish this - the rest of the objections to Trump serve no purpose and will be irrelevant when this country becomes an oligarchy of democrats who will have swung all future elections by overrunning America with a population shift of Third World migrants.
The Rush Bros pining for Cruzifer and berating Trump daily.
You know what? I’m sick of so called CONservatives and how they think they are the only ones who represent the Republican party and yet give obama every damn thing he wants be it immigration, PP funds, continuation of obummercare etal!
Go Trump go!
Yeah only thing out of Cruzifer so far is silence. But I’m sure his script writers will come up with something soon now that Trump has Spoken!
Spot on, to your EVERY word of that post!!
Notice how the media elites define the language for us. It's always "Conservative, Liberal, Establishment".
I heard 3 old men talking about the "establishment" on Sunday Morning. No one was using that term a few years ago.
That shows how much you know which is absolutely Nothing
Both our son and daughter were born in Germany seven years apart (1963 and 1970) in the same American hospital when he was stationed there. I did not become a US Citizen until June 12, 1977 when we were stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. My husband Registered our son and daughter when they were six weeks old with the American Consulate in Munich, Germany. They both received a birth certificate and American passport from the American Consulate in Munich. They would have never gotten them had the consulate not considered them natural born citizen. You really need to get better informed before you are making a bigger fool of yourself than you already are.
Over the last few decades, the political class has taken conservatism, a once-great political philosophy, and reduced it to supporting unfettered globalism combined with ill-conceived adventurism abroad, and then screeching that anybody who doesn’t support their agenda is not conservative. This bastardization of conservatism has gotten us to this abyss. So, no, David Limbaugh, you and your ilk can take your “conservatism” and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Trump may not be the most “conservative” in the race, according to you, but he is by far the most pro-American, and that is what we desperately need right now.
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.