Posted on 01/25/2016 6:39:44 AM PST by AndyJackson
Today we learn from Jim Robinson of a movement afoot to proselytize among the so-called conservatives here to abandon Free Republic.
This is but another effort by the supporters of Ted Cruz to squirm out of the Trump's closing in on the Republican nomination, and, perhaps the presidency. If the close is forestalled, and they SCREAM loudly enough in block capital letter that TRUMPIZOIDS ARE INSANE they will see Trump for what he is and the nomination will go to Cruz. They even project idiocies such as Trump's supporters would overlook it if he killed 500 puppies on TV with a hammer, a projection asking for an analysis that I leave to the clinical psychologists.
While Trump has provoked Bill and Hillary into cornering Hillary exactly where Trump wants her, we learn from Cruz's supporters that Trump did not do this using "pure conservative" tactics, which means, in Brent Bozell's view, Trump is a charlatan. He doesn't walk with "us."
Whatever kind of charlatan Trump may be, at the end of the day, when he promises his investors he will build a building, he builds the building, which is a lot more than the present government establishment ever does. As one of my sometimes libertarian, sometimes Democrat inclined friends and colleagues points out, Trump completed the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas on the ruins of a lot of former landmark, but now decayed casinos, and he did it at a time when Las Vegas and many of its other developers, famously, went bust around 2008 leaving a zone of bleak ruin in their wake. It is a constant lament among Trump's critics that he has holds his bankers and investors at bay, "stiffing them" while he finishes a project, sells the units, and operates the facility. From this we should conclude not that he is a shyster, the evidence for which would be a deed to swampland or a demolished crater, but the consummate project manager getting done what he set out to do, probably the highest moral standard a real estate operator can demonstrate, e.g. deliver the project he promised to deliver, come unions, the mob, city council members and the ivy-league trained mob-in-business-suits, the NY bankers and their legal counsel. Presumably, at the end of the day the banks all got paid, else the first Trump project liquidated at pennies on the dollar would have been the last Trump project. Instead his bankers continue to lend money for his projects.
The fundamental error made by those who walk with Brent Bozell is that they violate an old military principle that attacking a well-defended position by constantly on the same axis comes at a very high cost. Fortifications are built exactly because they are easy to defend and hard to attack. And conservatives have been attacking the liberal fortification along the same tired old line of attack for fifty years now. The Art of the Deal is just another version of Alinsky's Rules for radicals. The constant thrum of the conservative drum has gotten to be a drag [Alinky's Rule #7]. We know the battle plan on both sides of this argument, but conservatives insist on a civil war re-enactor's exactitude towards authentic paraphernalia, but they never go home except to retreat and refight the same battle another day with, they hope, a different outcome. The notion that the liberal establishment will fall if only we get a true conservative to attack them on true conservative principles is fantasy. Grant struggled in his campaign against Lee's Army of Virginia to get them out of their fortifications in the Wilderness and Petersburg. The costs of doing so earned him the opprobrious title of "butcher." But, eventually Lee was forced out of his defensive position and Grant out-maneuvered Lee's army forcing the surrender. Sherman's flanking move through Georgia was another part of this same maneuver.
As an example, the "non-conservative" Trump destroyed political correctness overnight after "true conservatives," spent decades wailing on every street-corner in the nation, even writing articles for publication in the National Review. Trump made the other side live up to his own rules [Alinsky's Rule #4]. Killing conservatives was the whole point of political correctness. What Trump pointed out was that political correctness was also killing those whom it was designed to benefit by making common cause with the injured parties, the majority of whom are not traditional supporters of the conservative cause.
In response to Trump's theme of competence conservatives have likewise screamed foul. They have become the flip side of the liberals believing "right- thinking" in both senses is far more important than right doing. Some 97% of the decisions people make are correctly made on the basis of "common sense" or at least the technical experience of trades, crafts and practitioners. That itself is common sense - the human species survived and evolved large brains not just for the elite, but for everyone because most of the time individuals of the species have a higher probability of survival by using his brain to adapt to the unique circumstances of each case. The argument against centralized thinking was the conservative case against the liberals. Now they demand the same of themselves. And in those cases where centralized direction is needed, wisdom is also needed underscored by the Robert's clever smart-aleck decision that Obamacare is a tax.
In short, Trump has triumphed by side-stepping the tired liberal/conservative attack / counter-attack by showing up the shortcomings of both sides, approaching from a different angle altogether. Whatever the 22 participants in the National Review attack on Trump mean by conservatism, is has unfortunately become the mirror reflection of the liberalism that it seeks to undo. And liberalism has built itself up as the antidote to the conservatism that sees itself as the antidote to liberalism. Each assails the other's stronghold and accomplishes nothing while marauders sack the undefended ground in between.
The fundamental problem, of course, is that conservatism is built on the political foundation of the Republican Party, and, with that party's devolution into crony capitalism, what conservatives attempt to defend is built on a "dismal" plague infested miasma. Defend the ramparts of your castle all you want. You are defending ground no one wants to occupy and the political battles will be fought elsewhere. If conservatives want to be relevant. they need to move to solid ground.
In supporting Trump have we abandoned conservatism? Well, define conservatism. If it is old go to church on Sunday small town America, that is dead. High-speed internet, Amazon, NETFLIX and FEDEX are now regarded as daily necessities in the most remote parts of America and anyone curious avails himself of these connections to the broader world. The doctor is not going to do house calls. Modern medical procedures are so complex and so dependent upon a vast healthcare system, that it sweeps up everyone. We decry government involvement, but is a "free market" solution available? Those who would hope so do have a burden of proof.
What principals are we actually defending. Now, I think that if conservatism is anything it is the application of our great heritages of British common law, enlightenment inspired science and reasoning, and Judeo-Christian principles of morality in how we treat our fellow humans. That conservatism could be very much alive. That is the conservatism of William F. Buckley. But his doctrinaire heirs at NR have abandoned that view.
Another recent post The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk which are more fully described by discusses this at much greater length. Russell Kirk himself. Kirk himself states that "conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order."
While a discussion of the full ten principles would be tedious here, let me emphasize two:
Principle 5 Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems [consult a dictionary. Doctrinaire conservatives are "radical"]. ... Society requires honest and able leadership ; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.
Principle 10: The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society ...Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. .... The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old. ..Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.
Trump's genius is framing issues in ways that reflects the problems faced by voters in their daily lives and not the problems argued by inside-the-beltway think-tanks on which the conservative establishment has made itself a useless appendage. If we believe in the vitality of the civil order, in right-acting, in solving problems that face the nation, supporting Trump is not inconsistent with conservatism. Sure, we must hold Trump to our leading principles, and we will. But we can do that without abandoning the field to Hillary.
If you meant to say a vote for Donald Trump is a vote against Jesus, you should have had the guts to say so, clearly and succinctly so there would be no mistake.
“The fundamental problem, of course, is that conservatism is built on the political foundation of the Republican Party, and, with that party’s devolution into crony capitalism, what conservatives attempt to defend is built on a “dismal” plague infested miasma. Defend the ramparts of your castle all you want. You are defending ground no one wants to occupy and the political battles will be fought elsewhere. If conservatives want to be relevant. they need to move to solid ground.”
In an article with a number of strange claims this is the strangest. The Conservative movement has been at war with the Republican party for as long as I can remember. This author seems to be saying that Conservatism = GOP, and since the GOP is the party of Crony Capitalism, then those who advocate for Conservative principles are advocating for Crony Capitalism. What a crock.
While I find Trump preferable to Hillary or Sanders, those who want to pretend that Trump’s devotion to liberal causes and politicians, and his admitted use of donations to buy business favors (Crony Capitalism anyone” should be ignored may have to listen to the tale of the Frog and the Scorpion a couple of years into a Trump presidency. I hope I’m wrong and Trump has had a fundamental change of heart politically, but I guess all we can do is hope at this point.
Precisely
Trumpism is inevitable after the refusal of either party to serve the interests of most Americans.
So, we may be fated to populism.
But the populism is the fault of the GOPe. Any discernably conservative impulse in the party would have avoided this fate.
Conservatism is supposed to be a political philosophy, not a religion with a totalitarian theocratic enforcement arm.
I for one will not adhere to any such perversion that believes in some unelected council of priests being able to force compliance to their egotistical pronouncements under threat of “excommunication”.
That is certainly not conservatism.
well written AJ...good logic, strong points.
Glenn Beck says if Trump is elected, we’ll go straight to hell in a hand basket. But first, this message from goldline...
Very, Very Interesting.
Please consider the possibility that repeating the same failed attacks produces the same failed results.
Are you attempting to drive me away from Free Republic?
It would depend on who he shot of course.
The ironic thing is that when Trump is elected it will not be on the basis of conservative support, and he will not be beholden to conservatives for his win. So conservatives are essentially devouring one another and destroying their movement for nothing.
Very good analysis.
THIS WEEK’S CAMPAIGN STOPS
Monday, January 25th - Farmington, NH:
Farmington High School
Doors Open: 5:00 p.m.
Rally Starts: 7:00 p.m.
40 Thayer Drive
Farmington, NH 03835
Tickets are available at TrumpFarmington.Eventbrite.com.
Tuesday, January 26th - Marshalltown, IA:
Marshalltown School District Roundhouse Gym
1602 South Second Ave
Marshalltown, IA 50158.
Doors Open: 3:00 p.m.
Rally Starts: 5:00 p.m.
Tickets are available at TrumpMarshalltown.Eventbrite.com.
Tuesday, January 26th - Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa - Field House
225 South Grand Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52242.
Doors Open: 5:30 p.m.
Rally Starts: 7:30 p.m.
Tickets are available at TrumpIowaCity.Eventbrite.com.
Wednesday, January 27th - Lexington County, SC:
Harmon Tree Farm
Doors Open: 5:00 p.m.
Rally Start: 7:00 p.m.
Tickets can be found here: TrumpLexingtonCounty.Eventbrite.com
Thursday, January 28th - Des Moines, IA
Fox News Debate
Live Coverage Starts at 9:00 pm EST
Friday, January 29th - Nashua, NH
Radisson Hotel Nashua
Doors Open: 8:00 a.m.
Townhall Starts: 10:00 a.m.
11 Tara Boulevard
Nashua, NH 03062
Tickets are available at TrumpNashuaNH.Eventbrite.com.
We are looking forward to the busy week ahead and hope that you can join us at one, if not all, of our scheduled rallies and events!
Have a wonderful week,
Team Trump
OK, then the question for (the generic) you to ask would be, if he didn’t shoot either a terrorist or someone committing a violent crime, am I still a 24%er...
WE have many months before the general election and whoever wins will be going against the DEm for us to see how they hold up in late summer and Fall.
If they start repudiating all the ‘conservative’ sounding positions they took to win the primary it won’t be pretty.
kudos... I think many of us have “other” candidates we support, but “can” vote for the nominee.
I have a feeling it’s going to be Trump, and I think he will win big.
I’m also an East Coast elitist with European roots.... and the notion of a Trump Presidency will be pretty embarrassing when I travel.
Ah well... I can live with it :)
Personally I don’t care where you post. But considering Reagan was the last unapologetic conservative on the national scene I’d say your hypothesis is all wet.
So, I’ve read your post. I note that you attack other conservatives a bunch (Cruz, Bozell, etc.), folks that have been standard-bearers in times when conservatism has been hard-pressed to even be expressed.
I notice you attack Democrats and their ideas very little.
You seem to have a greater vitriol for actual conservatives than you have for liberals (at least based on your focus).
Please explain to me how this helps advance conservatism?
To quote Reagan: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Perhaps if you will clarify or expand on that mind boggling statement, I will read the rest.
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.