Posted on 02/09/2018 10:03:34 AM PST by Kaslin
President Trump is the leader of America's conservative party.
Yet not even his allies would describe him as a conservative in the tradition of Robert Taft, Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley.
In the primaries of 2016, all his rivals claimed the mantle of Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan. Yet Trump captured the party's heart.
Who, then, and what is Donald Trump?
In a Federalist essay, "Trump Isn't a Conservative -- And That's a Good Thing," Frank Cannon comes close to the mark.
Trump, he writes, "would more accurately be described as a 'radical anti-progressive'" who is "at war with the progressives who have co-opted American civil society." Moreover, Trump "is willing to go further than any other previous conservative to defeat them."
Many "elite conservatives," writes Cannon, believe the "bedrock institutions" they treasure are "not subject to the same infectious politicization to which the rest of society has succumbed."
This belief is naive, says Cannon, "ridiculous on its face."
"Radical anti-progressives" recognize that many institutions -- the academy, media, entertainment and the courts -- have been co-opted and corrupted by the left. And as these institutions are not what they once were, they no longer deserve the respect they once had.
Yet most conservatives will only go so far in criticizing these institutions. We see this in how cradle Catholics find it difficult to criticize the Church in which they were birthed and raised, despite scandals and alterations in the liturgy and doctrine.
President Trump is the leader of America's conservative party.
Yet not even his allies would describe him as a conservative in the tradition of Robert Taft, Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley.
In the primaries of 2016, all his rivals claimed the mantle of Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan. Yet Trump captured the party's heart.
Who, then, and what is Donald Trump?
In a Federalist essay, "Trump Isn't a Conservative -- And That's a Good Thing," Frank Cannon comes close to the mark.
Trump, he writes, "would more accurately be described as a 'radical anti-progressive'" who is "at war with the progressives who have co-opted American civil society." Moreover, Trump "is willing to go further than any other previous conservative to defeat them."
Many "elite conservatives," writes Cannon, believe the "bedrock institutions" they treasure are "not subject to the same infectious politicization to which the rest of society has succumbed."
This belief is naive, says Cannon, "ridiculous on its face."
"Radical anti-progressives" recognize that many institutions -- the academy, media, entertainment and the courts -- have been co-opted and corrupted by the left. And as these institutions are not what they once were, they no longer deserve the respect they once had.
Yet most conservatives will only go so far in criticizing these institutions. We see this in how cradle Catholics find it difficult to criticize the Church in which they were birthed and raised, despite scandals and alterations in the liturgy and doctrine.
President Trump is the most conservative President since Reagan and has exposed the Bush father and son as the pretenders they are.
If President Trump continues to conserve the America we all love he may well eclipse Reagan.
I love it. That's what I am.
But we're not just against something. We are FOR something.
ULTIMATE MAGA: RESTORING OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
Whatever it takes - and it will take a lot. But the fight for freedom is worth it.
I gave up my “conservative” card during the primaries.
Many on this forum proclaimed that unless you supported their candidate you were not a “true” conservative.
So I am not a true conservative. I am not willing to play nice while the left demonize me, my family, my culture, my nation.
True conservatives seemed to be too afraid of being tagged with being “racist” or “homophobic” to fight back.
Say what you will about President Trump, he has shown that sticks and stones may breaks some bones but words will not hurt you.
> I gave up my “conservative” card during the primaries. <
I have a slightly different take. I gave up my “Republican” card years ago. And it was George W. Bush’s first term that did it for me.
Trump is anti globalist which neo-conservatives hate him for.
Excellent article. I emailed it to a dozen others.
I gave up my “conservative” card during the primaries.
Many on this forum proclaimed that unless you supported their candidate you were not a “true” conservative.
So I am not a true conservative. I am not willing to play nice while the left demonize me, my family, my culture, my nation.
True conservatives seemed to be too afraid of being tagged with being “racist” or “homophobic” to fight back.””
Excellent assessment,particularly the first sentence.
I gave up my faux conservative card even earlier than G.W. Bush. The day Bush the elder said we are in a New World Order was epiphany for me, although Goldwater’s libertarian bent had prepared the way.
I have said it for years. Kirk on side of angels, but really a re-discoverer of our Natural Law under the Judeo Christian God conservatism..
Buckley pure B.S. influnced by trotskyite neo cons.
Classical, true conservatism is pro-life to the core, recognizing self defense as a right and eveen duty. It values freedom as God given rights to choose among various good, but not the license to choose, unpunished, between good and evil. It recognizes an objective reality not a subject fantasy as the basis for morality and progress. And on and on.
Prior to 911 Conservative always meant pro-Free Trade, pro-open borders...almost. Pre-911 Hannity would have Pat Buchanan on and ridicule Pat for being the only anti-Free Trade, anti-illegal immigration Conservative in the USA.
And it was true. Capitalist conservatives, Corporatist Conservatives, Evangelical Conservatives, Libertarian Conservatives, Constitutional and Constitutionist Conservatives and every type of US Conservative visible (except Pat Buchanan) was pro-Free Trade, pro-immigration.
Post 911 the Minutemen emerged and from the bottom up, gradually moved the base anti-Free Trade, anti-(illegal) immigration. At first Hannity told his screeners to not let them on the air. But they became so many callers that finally Hannity let them on to save his audience. Then, in 24 hours Hannity flipped from pro to anti to keep his audience.
Most talk radio flipped on the issue without ever mentioning that they flipped. The TeaParty started with taxes, economics and Obamacare as the only issues. Many pro-2A people included 2A in the early TeaParty with no problem.
Then, gradually, about 6 months into the TeaParty, the anti(illegal) immigrant voices started being heard...and they quickly grabbed control of the TeaParty and moved it from an economic focus to an immigration focus.
Trump made immigration and Trade top issues in his campaign. He took the TeaParty position, which is not the historical Conservative position. Under what definition of US Conservative is the anti-Free Trade, anti(illegal) immigration agenda “Conservative”? It is Populist, Nationalist, Socialist protection and affirmative action.
EVerify. In what world does big Nanny State government tell private employers who the can and cannot hire. That is as anti-Conservative as can be imagined. The government controlling private employers that way has always been called liberalism and progressiveism and socialism.
But now Trump is “negotiating”. #1 thing he said in his campaign is that he is a great negotiator. That was the context in which Trump said everything else.
Trump is now listening to his private lawyer, a true Conservative, and is negotiating on immigration and trade and other issues.
By taking a position that seemed extreme to the C of C and other Corporatists in the establishment, Trump gave himself a strong hand in negotiations. So far, so good.
Well stated.
Why does this article consist of two blocks of identical text posted one after the other?
Thanks. Sorry for errors meant subjective no subject. Eeek.
I have always been more with Buchanan than the Bush League Republicans.
I grudgingly voted for them as they had control of the party apparatus and could shut out any alternative but a Democrat.
I suspect much of FR, on reflection, has much regret about supporting undocumented Democrats in R jerseys because it has led us to the edge of the cliff.
Thread bump
That’s what did it for me, too.
I voted for Buchanan in the primary in 1992.
I did not vote for GHW Bush in the general.
I held my nose for Bob Dole, always thought he was a good man, but they were using him as a Designated Loser.
I held my nose for GWB because I could not stand the thought of AlGore being President.
I did it again in 2004. Kerry.
I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, there was no way the GOP was going to force me to vote for McAmnesty.
Romney was another nose hold, I did not believe a word he said. How could anyone?
We have been manipulated into voting for undocumented Democrats in R jerseys to keep the borders open and the laws unenforced for 30 years.
Most of the apparatus of the GOP is still in the hands of the Bush League Republicans.
They are still determined to get that final amnesty that will seal our fate as North Mexico like Poppy Bush wants.
It was worth saying it twice...
We can only pray that Trump will ALSO survive some idiot trying to impress a girl!
So true; but they will; definitely; PISS YOU OFF!
Pitchfork Pat! I ran as a delegate for Pat in the Louisiana 1996 Presidential Caucus. We made a decent showing early, until the RINO forces managed to collect their wits and derail us.
I always considered my efforts on behalf of Pat to have been a high point in my personal political activism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1996
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.