Posted on 08/18/2015 7:44:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via the Blaze, consider this an open thread for when Hannity interviews Beck about Trump later tonight at 10 p.m. on his Fox show. There are a million fascinating subplots to Trumpmania and one of them is the sometimes friendly, sometimes not so friendly rifts it’s opening up between big-name conservatives in the media. The Beck/Hannity rift is friendly: Here’s Beck’s respectful open letter to Rush, Sean, et al. last week about why they’re excited about a candidate who’s obviously not a conservative and here’s Hannity’s respectful reply. Read them now as background if you’re planning to watch their tete-a-tete later. (For a less friendly example of a disagreement over Trump, see Mark Levin’s justifiably disgusted reaction to Ann Coulter calling Trump’s immigration plan so great that she wouldn’t mind if he performed abortions in the White House himself.) Beck asks a good question here and then offers a good answer to it.
Why, he says, do conservative opinion-makers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity give Trump a pass on his many, many ideological heresies when normally they’re bulldogs in calling out centrists like Romney for lesser offenses? Beck’s answer: Trump has a swagger that Romney doesn’t. When Trump tells you he’s going to seal the border and destroy the Beltway establishment, you believe him because he doesn’t care who disapproves of him or his objectives. He’s going to do what he sets out to do. After trying for decades and failing to make American government incrementally more conservative, some righties are ready to gamble on a guy who, if, if, if he’s true to his word, will achieve more in that vein than any president since Reagan. Essentially, after six election cycles of making low-risk bets on business-as-usual Republicans, conservatives are willing to make a high-stakes gamble on a guy who won’t be business as usual but, er, might not govern as a Republican either.
Let me give you two other takes on Trumpmania, though, to help explain the divide between Trump-lovers and Trump-haters. I think there’s some truth to what Josh Barro says about Trump appealing to a less libertarian cohort of conservatives, which may explain why Beck in particular is having such trouble grasping his appeal.
Mr. Trump’s critique of government differs greatly from that of most conservatives. The conservative argument for small government ordinarily rests on the idea that citizens necessarily know better what to do with their money and their lives than the government does, because the government lacks the local knowledge that individuals have. Under this theory, even a government run by smart people will do lots of stupid, costly things.
Mr. Trump is positing not a general, inherent failure of government but a very specific one. He nearly shouted it at last week’s debate: “Our leaders are stupid, our politicians are stupid.” This is the core idea of the Trump campaign, and it does not necessarily imply that government should be smaller. It implies that somebody smart, ideally Mr. Trump, should run the government.
If Republican voters share Mr. Trump’s diagnosis that the main problem with our government is stupid leaders, and if they believe that Mr. Trump is much smarter and wiser than the politicians who have come before him, they may be fully prepared to forgive his apostasies on Medicaid, taxes and everything else. If their real beef is not with our leaders but with big government itself, his support should fade as his policy moderation becomes clear.
Beck thinks government gallups along inexorably towards failure because that’s what collectivist institutions inevitably do. The best thing you can do with government is shrink it so that it does as little damage as possible. Some Trump fans — maybe not the sort of grassroots conservatives who read blogs like this one but surely some of his moderate supporters — think the problem with government isn’t necessarily that it’s too big but that it’s been badly run and/or run for the primary benefit of the wrong people and that a better steward could straighten things out. Again, the high-stakes bet on Trump is that he’s a guy uniquely capable, through the force of his personality and his ability to build silent-majority mandates, to do the straightening. Assuming, that is, he behaves like a Republican once in office. Beck, wisely, isn’t willing to make that bet. Hannity seems to be.
The other take on Trump’s appeal is my own, something I’ve been thinking about since he announced his immigration plan this weekend. Trump and Ted Cruz are frequently lumped in together (including by me) because they’re both overt populists and both seen as essentially right-wing phenomena even though Cruz’s base is more uniformly conservative than Trump’s is. In an important way, though, Cruz and Trump are opposites. The point of Cruz’s trademark rhetoric about “bold colors, not pale pastels” is that he’s a true believer in conservatism’s power to win over the masses if it’s presented unapologetically, in its strong form, by an able messenger like Ronald Reagan (or, of course, Ted Cruz).
Give the voters real conservatism and they’ll flock to you, whatever the pollsters or the demographics say. It’s an essentially religious belief in the power of the creed to convert infidels so long as it’s given a fair hearing.
Trump fans, on some level, have given up that belief assuming they ever had it to begin with, I think. They wish Cruz was right but they just don’t think conservatism is an electoral winner anymore, either because the character of the country has changed or because changing demographics have made it impossible. At this point, the best deal you’re going to get is a guy like Trump who’s compromised ideologically but seems to have some conservative instincts, most notably on immigration, and who seems like he really might be willing to push the country in that direction (on certain issues) if he’s given power.
In particular, by calling for all illegals to be deported and immigration to be reduced, Trump would drastically reduce the number of future voters from Mexico and the third world, most of whom would end up voting Democratic given past trends. (Coulter makes this point pretty explicitly in praising Trump’s plan.) If you’ve given up on conservatism’s power to persuade and have come to see national politics chiefly as a power struggle among different demographic groups, Trump arguably makes the most sense. He may not be a conservative but he’ll protect what’s left of the country and the people who still care about it from being preyed upon domestically and abroad, which, at this stage of American decadence, is the best you can hope for. Essentially, and very ironically, he’s the guy standing athwart history yelling “stop!” Not my candidate, but I think what I’ve described is a core part of his appeal.
There’s no impasse, Beck. You’re a vote. Not a mormon god. Go baptize some dead spirit wives or something.
Although I loathe Allahpundit, he does hit on something that hits close to home with me. For my entire adult life as a self-described conservative, I always had a sharp trust and faith in the individual over the state. That’s totally died for me in the past handful of years, as I’ve seen the country’s culture and character slide into the sewer. Hence, I now no longer have any faith or trust in the American individual either. And for me it probably does contribute to my increased attraction to iconoclastic, devil-may-care characters like Trump.
I saw it. It reminds of why Hannity turned me off years ago.
He talks so stupid sometimes.
Furthermore it seems that many ga-ga over him would not give others that free pass.
Think about it, just a few months ago many were claiming that anti-abortion bills outlawing abortion that allowed some (any) exceptions were legalizing abortion.
Trump says he supports three exceptions in abortion laws and we are saved.
As Trump says "Where-ever"
Beck knows more about what we're up against vs the commie movement, past and present, than damn near any other prominent conservative commentator out there, including Hannity who has a juvenile understanding of it. Only the hard left should be hostile toward him.
Wow! That's right out of the left-wing playbook!
Jealous of ........ ???????????????
Exactly.
“He’s on radio now bashing Trump”
Hoping to scoop a Megyn Kelly interview upon her return from “vacation”?
-— Trump is reflecting the American silent majority, that is why. -—
Yes, today. But his positions have changed fairly recently, so there is reason for skepticism.
Nope wrong mindedness will not sway me. Trump is a liberal, or progressive whatever that has decided to suck all the air out of the room by screaming in everyone’s face. I support Cruz and will work for his election. If the Republicans fail to nominate a conservative, I will gladly vote for the Constitution party candidate.
Shouldn’t conservative Beck be down at the border welcoming illegals with teddy bears and soccer balls?
Pray America is waking
Politicians scold all the time. So what’s the difference between that and Trump’s scolding?
Trump has a gravitas. He isn’t resting on the majesty of politicians. He’s resting on common sense.
That's it in a nutshell.
Politics is War.
Those who accomplish things must politically KILL their human opponents.
Beck wears women's underwear and would never politically KILL another human. Therefore he should be shunned and ridiculed.
The evil GOPe are like Beck -- unable to politically KILL their opponents.
Trump is willing to politically KILL his human opponents.
Hence, Trump is a true leader.
Conservatives must find a way to politically kill ALL their opponents; take no prisoners.
Glenn Beck can be a fake conservative but he knows talk radio is not for liberal. The guy is annoying, he sounds a copycat Alex Jones.
I haven’t seen anyone that Trump has truly killed, but he has managed to put them in their place by preaching the obvious like he really means it.
Guess I am still a Red Book carrying communist pro-abortionist. People do change once they realize they were wrong.
I haven't seen you posting lately (unless I missed them).
Good to see you back.
And I don’t understand why Beck trusts Rand, Rubio, or Walker.
Trump believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman. He disagreed with Anthony Kennedy’s decision. Beck on the other hand says marriage is a “civil right” for anyone that we can’t deny “civil rights” to anyone. Trump right, Beck wrong.
re: And I don’t understand why Beck trusts Rand, Rubio, or Walker.
Did he say that he trusts them?
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.