Posted on 02/10/2016 2:37:28 PM PST by Kaslin
On Monday, grassroots Republican favorite Donald Trump repeated the phrase when an audience member called Ted Cruz a "p----." He came to this conclusion after determining that Cruz wasn't sufficiently gung-ho about waterboarding possible terrorists. Asked to define conservatism at the last Republican debate, Trump stated, "I think it's a person who doesn't want to take overly risks. I think that's a good thing."
On Tuesday, establishment Republican favorite columnist David Brooks of The New York Times wrote a column called "I Miss Barack Obama." In it, he pilloried Senators Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and lamented that Obama "radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I'm beginning to miss." In October, Brooks defined conservatism thusly: "conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible."
Neither of these definitions are correct, of course. But the fact that Trump and Brooks largely agree on the definition of conservatism while fighting each other tooth and nail demonstrates why conservatism is losing.
Both Trump and Brooks think that conservatism is mainly an attitude. It's not a set of principles and policies; it's not a philosophy of human freedom and small government. Instead, conservatism is merely an orientation toward change: Trump wants slow change, and so does Brooks.
So where do they disagree? They disagree about whether conservatism is militant attitude in pursuit of slow change (Trump) or whether conservatism is elegance in pursuit of slow change (Brooks). Trump thinks Brooks is a "p----," presumably; Brooks thinks Trump is a vulgarian.
Neither one is actually conservative, and yet they're fighting for the mantle of conservative leadership.
The problem, of course, is that conservatism has very little to do with attitude. Conservatism demands Constitutionalism, and in the aftermath of a century of progressive growth of government -- including growth at the hands of so-called conservatives -- change need not be gradual. The attitude matters less than the goal. We can have hard-charging conservatives like Mark Levin; we can have 10-dollar-word conservatives like many of the writers at National Review. What we can't have is nonconservatives redefining conservatism as an attitude, and then ignoring the underlying philosophy.
Yet that's precisely what we have in this race. The entire Republican race thus far has avoided policy differentiations in favor of critiques of attitudes. Who is more palatable, the shifty-seeming Cruz, or the smooth-talking Rubio? Who is more worthwhile, the brusque Chris Christie or the milquetoast Jeb Bush?
Who cares?
Republicans have spent so long in the wilderness that they've forgotten what animated them in the first place. At some point, Republicans forgot that their job was to determine the best face for a conservative philosophy, and instead substituted the face for the philosophy. The conservatism simply fell away.
In the battle between David Brooks' pseudoconservatism and Donald Trump's pseudoconservatism, there are no winners, but there is one major loser: conservatism itself. Conservatives need to worry less about how they fight -- whether they wear creased pants or hurl nasty insults -- and instead contemplate why they're fighting in the first place.
Globalism wrapped in the flag is by no means conservative.
It’s a fraud, and we’re having none of it
What you call "conservatism" is simply globalism wrapped in the flag by fraudsters and con artists. You are a nationalist. Be proud of it.
"All" is key.
Little Marco, struggling to recover from his disaster last Saturday, stammered out a rationale for amnesty by saying the invaders would have to "pay some taxes".
Well, I was born in Brooklyn New York to two citizen parents, and I don't have to pay "some" taxes, I have to pay every last f***ing dime.
What's good enough for me is good enough for them.
It may be me, but here's one candidate that has placed himself front and center of deeds promised. That said, he has lined himself to the worst criticism ever should he fail to produce.
Can you see DT putting himself out there without a plan to succeed
Which he followed with “we’ll let the good ones back in”...
Actually I meant for the country clubbers to pay more taxes, but, I guess for the “immigrants” as well that’s fine too.
Ah, “conservative thought”. I guess that’s like “conservative principles” and “true conservatism”, etc. Right?
You know like the “conservative thought” used by the pandering, lying, cringing, sold-out, PC, DC insider GOP establishment in Congress who continuously stabs we American workers in the back, right?
Or was that the “conservative thought” used by the GOP in Congress to stand up to Obama and stop his agenda by passing a budget that eviscerated his illegal immigration policies, eliminated the energy-destroying EPA, eliminated the Marxist propaganda Education Department, eliminated the job-destroying Labor Department, eliminated the racist Civil Rights Commission, defunded the FCC until they give back control of the Internet to private industry, defunded Obamacare, defunded enforcement of 99% of Obama’s regulations and Executive Orders?
I wonder which of those groups using “conservative thought” that we’re talking about here. Or is there some OTHER, third group of “conservative thinkers” in Congress? Some group of “thoughtful conservatives” that have done amazingly wonderful, “thoughtfully conservative” things that have marvelously benefited the people of our country?
“Small consolation for bigger government.”
Wish someone could limit the size of government, but even Reagan failed at that.
20-some % of government employees say they’ll leave if trump is elected.
Watch out, x. Knives are flying.
Good article. Now it's "If Your Country is Failing, Just Go". But NR are the "True Conservatives". They keep telling us so.
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.