Trump, Moral Conservatism, and Political Conservatism (insightful article on the Donald)

american thinker ^ | 4/7/11 | J Kerwick

[bestintxas]

Donald Trump will announce before June whether he will run for the presidency as a Republican. Whether I will endorse him in the primaries will depend upon whom he will be competing against. Sadly, given the names that I have heard bandied about thus far, that endorsement is almost a foregone conclusion.

Personally, I don't particularly care for Trump. I don't doubt that he loves his country and his family, but his unabashed extravagance coupled with the readiness with which he has exchanged one wife for another bespeak a narcissism notable for its comprehensiveness. If ever there were an individual who seems to epitomize the crass, shallow man of business that earned Adam Smith's personal scorn, "the capitalist" who, as Marx said, revolves his every decision around "the cash nexus," Trump appears to be it. And when to these considerations we add the fact that, in spite of having been even more financially supportive of Democratic politicians than he has been of Republicans, he is now whistling a different political tune, it is hard to escape the impression that he is something of a cynical opportunist.

Trump may or may not be the best of men, but from a conservative perspective, he may still wind up being a good president. That is, even though morally or personally speaking Trump may not have a trace of conservatism in his soul, politically he could be as conservative a candidate as any for which conservatives could hope.

Trump aside, this distinction between political conservatism and moral conservatism is lost upon many.

[bestintxas]

Anybody doubt that he would make a stronger Prez than the boy-child we now have?

[No_More_Harkin]

I believe he would make a better president than Obama. But I believe him to be somewhat of a megalomaniac.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I read the whole article, and I never quite got the point that the writer was attempting to make. The one between political and moral conservatives. Whatever the point Dr. Kerouac was trying to make, I’ll make a point. There are many current candidates out there that would be better conservatives than Trump. That said, “the Donald” is providing an invaluable service to the country right now with his pursuit of Obama’s birth certificate.

[MrEdd]

I won't vote for a soclib no matter how one is packaged.

I will vote for an across the board conservative.
There will be one on the ballot, just as there was in 2008.

If the republicans run a liberal like they did in 2008, then they won't get my vote again.

[70th Division]

Yes, but on the bright side the first lady would be hot.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Whatever else I think of Trump, he’s the only guy out their with the guts to ask why Obama has spent over 2 Million dollars concealing his birth records.

[McBuff]

Three words: Supreme Court Nominations

[SMARTY]

“...readiness with which he has exchanged one wife for another...”

If you think THAT STUFF matters anymore, and given the complete moral cypher we NOW have in the WH, you are too hooked on OLD TIME politics to endorse ANYONE!

THOSE DAYS are over!!! It is time for us to look at fitness for the job, as the O N L Y qualifier.

This BS about assessing the candidate's personal life is just the kind of eligibility deal-breaker that Liberals and the MSM would LOVE Conservatives to shoot themselves in the foot over... play THAT F*&^ING game and you will NEVER see another Conservative in the WH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the DNC can field and win with a candidate as politically and personally objectionable as “O”, you better get OFF your high horse and field the one who can lead-no matter how much the MSM tries to force THEIR double standard on gullible voters!

[SMARTY]

Of course, I am addressing my comment to the author of the piece.

[Leaning Right]

he’s the only guy out their with the guts to ask why Obama has spent over 2 Million dollars concealing his birth records

Trump is also the only guy to complain about the loss of the country's manufacturing base.

The loss of our factories to China and Mexico is a very big deal. They get richer, we get poorer. I don't understand why no other politician seems to care about this.

[frithguild]

That said, “the Donald” is providing an invaluable service to the country right now with his pursuit of Obama’s birth certificate

Issue innoculation.

[bestintxas]

Agreed. However, I am starting to believe that the GOP to win needs to have a strong charasmatic leader to run against Obama.

Which other of the field would fit that bill?

[Responsibility2nd]

I will vote for an across the board conservative.
There will be one on the ballot, just as there was in 2008.

________________________________________________

There was? Who, may I ask?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The point is that political conservatives realize that government has neither the mandate nor the competence to execute utopian visions (such as making people moral)."

Then Dr. Kerwick should state it a little better. One other thing, he misses the point of moral conservatism. The point is not to make people moral but to promote morality. Big difference. We as conservatives obviously should tolerate homosexuality, infidelity etc. However, it does not mean that we have to accept that as being morally equivalent to a man and woman living in the faithful union of marriage. It means we understand the faults of people, but don't have to support a candidate for office who changes wives like suits.

The preamble to the constitution says that one of the roles of the federal government is to promote the welfare. What does that mean? Well of course the left has stretched that to mean we should support every government welfare program to come down the pike. Madison said:"

"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action;"

In other words, it's good that Michelle Obama is out there trying to raise awareness to healthy eating habits and proper physical fitness of the American people. That is the federal government promoting the general welfare. It is not good that she is attempting to use federal money or regulations to force people into good physical fitness. That's none of her or the federal government's business to do. And has not been enumerated for them to do.