Posted on 08/12/2015 7:28:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[BIG SNIP top of Morning Jolt]
"....Do Republicans Even Care What Conservatism Is Anymore?
In mid-August 2011, Rick Perry was the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. He led every national poll from mid-August to late September. Of course, the following six months turned out to be one of the most tumultuous periods of any presidential primary in recent memory: Herman Cain led some polls -- he reached 27 percent in one survey -- followed by Newt Gingrich, and before the primaries were done, Rick Santorum was the frontrunner for several consecutive polls. At one point, Michele Bachmann was in second place nationally. In February, one poll had Ron Paul in second place with 21 percent of the vote. Of course, Mitt Romney never trailed that badly, and ended up winning the nomination.
Perhaps Donald Trump will be remembered as another Cain or Gingrich. But one striking contrast is that Cain and Gingrich were indisputably conservative. Sure, Gingrich had some out-there ideas and Cain could be pretty open about his inexperience in foreign affairs, but their views, statements, and actions during their long public careers clearly put them on the right side of the political spectrum.
This doesn’t apply to Donald Trump. The criteria of the Trump fans strike the rest of us as bewildering, because there’s no past or present deviation from conservative philosophy that seems serious enough to get them to say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa . . . maybe I’ve got the wrong guy here.”
Trump is allegedly popular because he’s the only one talking about illegal immigration -- he isn’t -- but in the past days he said he supports what sounds like a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants, based on “merit.”
Ann Coulter contends Trump will continue to surge as long as he keeps talking about immigration, stating, “The voters keep saying, ‘We don’t want any more immigration.” Does she still feel that way when Trump says, “I would get people out and I would have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so that they can be legal”?
Glenn Reynolds attributes Trump’s rise to anger over two particular issues . . .
>>>Trump’s rise is, like that of his Democratic counterpart Bernie Sanders, a sign that a large number of voters don’t feel represented by more mainstream politicians. On many issues, ranging from immigration reform, which many critics view as tantamount to open borders, to bailouts for bankers, the Republican and Democratic establishments agree, while a large number (quite possibly a majority) of Americans across the political spectrum feel otherwise . . .<<<
Except Trump’s immigration position of sending the illegals home and then letting “the good ones” enter legally isn’t all that different from an open border, and Trump is not a critic of the Troubled Asset Relief Program:
>>>You had to do something to sure up [sic] the banks, because the psychology of the banks and you would have had a run on every banks, the strongest and the weakest. So, you have to do something. And I hated the ultraconservative view on that. And ultraconservative is nothing should ever happen. If they go out of business, everybody said, that’s fine.<<<
You did have to do something to sure up the banks. They probably should have done something for Lehman Brothers, because Lehman was a disaster that caused lots of other disasters. Lehman was a real disaster, but they did have to do something to sure up the banks.
Trump also supported the bailout of the auto industry.
On just about every major issue, Trump has previously loudly endorsed the progressive ideal: In 1999, he endorsed a 14.25 percent one-time “net worth tax“ on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more. He’s called for “universal healthcare” and described himself as “very liberal on health care.” He supported the assault-weapons ban. He once said he was “very pro-choice.” He just said he’s willing to support funding for Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion activities. He’s a big fan of eminent domain, and said he agreed with the Kelo vs. New London decision “100 percent.”
Lots of conservative writers have been laying out Trump’s past statements and positions for several weeks now, with little or no impact on his lead in the polls. Either lots of Republican voters don’t encounter these arguments, or they read them and don’t think Trump’s past positions matter much.
What’s particularly baffling about Trump fans is that, right after dismissing their man’s past liberal positions, they will then turn around and dismiss other candidates because they’re allegedly not conservative enough.
The skepticism of Jeb Bush is completely understandable, whether it’s his allegedly “rigorous path to earned legal status,” his stance on Common Core (and the suspicion he’s not being honest about what the program does) or the nagging fear he won’t be relentless enough if matched against his metaphorical sister-in-law Hillary Clinton. But between his dramatic expansion of school choice, nearly $20 million in state tax cuts, cutting 14,000 state jobs, abolishment of affirmative action in university admissions and state contracting by executive order, and eliminating all state funding of Planned Parenthood, Jeb Bush did more for the cause of conservatism in his eight years as governor than Donald Trump ever did.
Marco Rubio will be similarly dismissed from consideration for his role in the Gang of Eight deal, although how different is that bill’s path to citizenship from Trump’s “expedited way to get them back in the country legally”?
Rick Perry is flat-lining in some of the early primary states. Is this over his 2011 “have a heart” comment? Doesn’t his response to the 2014 border crisis count for anything?
Are we really to believe that Donald Trump is the most consistently conservative, most qualified, most electable, overall best choice in a field that includes Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal? That he deserves the support of Republicans more than Carly Fiorina? Even if you disagree with some of their particular stances, don’t Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee deserve more credit for what they’ve actually done for the conservative cause? Doesn’t Ben Carson or John Kasich bring more to the table?
The 20-some percent of self-identified Republicans currently preferring Trump are insisting to the rest of us that records don’t matter, attitude does. This strikes me as spectacularly wrong-headed.
Do these voters know what conservatism is? Do they care?
I’m for Cruz. But Trump would be his own creature and not the tool of the GOP-e. That makes him more acceptable in my eyes than Jeb Bush.
A bunch of conservatives think the US can be a strong country, both economically and militarily. These are generally very important things to most Americans. If you believe Trump, he is for this. Voila! Popularity among conservatives, liberals, etc., etc.
“Conservative”, a word that has become nothing more than an obligatory campaign slogan to most Republicans. Thank God for Senator Cruz.
It's because of the lack of "social conservatism" that the country is in its dire situation.
A big clue that the answer is “no” is that every Republican running for president enthusiastically supports the unconstitutional socialism of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
And that’s just for starters.
________
“Conservative: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” -- Ambrose Bierce, American editorialist
Those terms vary over time. What was conservative (or liberal) in the 17th or 18th or 19th or 20th century may not be conservative (or liberal) today. Sometimes, the term may mean the opposite of what it once did.
If you want to understand what somebody means by conservative or liberal, there's no alternative to looking closely at the things they say they believe in, and not simply taking the label for granted. Start with an understanding of what they actually favor and you can usually work back to what politicians or writers actually mean when they use labels like liberal or conservative.
Speaking of: if you read the article it looks like he's not saying that the GOP Establishment doesn't care about what conservatism is any more.
He's saying that conservative Trump-voting Republicans don't care about conservatism because the positions Donald's taken over time, haven't been that conservative.
He's saying that Trump hasn't been more or isn't necessarily conservative than other candidates who conservatives have left for Trump (or never supported to begin with) -- Bush, Rubio, Perry, or any of the others (except Lindsey Graham, Gilmore, or Pataki whom he doesn't mention).
I thought from the headline this would be a criticism of the GOPe pushing Jeb on us!
As for conservatives’ support for Trump: many see their choice as one between Trump and Bush. They make the logical choice given their assumption.
As the campaign continues conservatives will swing to the more conservative candidates.
That will be interesting with Trump holding the ‘moderates’ support. Very interesting.
If I get your quote, it’s saying that a conservative is someone who accepts (enamored = “be filled with a feeling of love for”) the present evils whereas a “liberal” just wants to replace the present evils with other evils.
Haven’t seen conservative defined like that around here before. But the word “conservative” does imply keeping the status quo, which is why I no longer like calling myself a conservative becasue I hate the status quo.
What’s missing IMO from the dialect and characterization of “conservatism” is the idea of freedom, which idea out country is founded on. “Conservatism” is a political idea that, as you point out, changes with the times. Freedom, however, never changes and as far as I am concerned freedom, not conservatism, is what we should be fighting for.
I have written some specifics on the issues of freedom if you’re interested.
He’s offensive.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/07/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-prenup-marie-brenner
And we all hope Jesse holds his breath until he gets the call LOL!
National Review = Butthurt And Beltway
I like the term “federalism”. All duties not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution are handled by the states.
Bierce was a great kidder -- though like most wits he thought he was also telling the truth. Also something of a cynic. He was a lot like his contemporary and fellow Civil War veteran, Mark Twain.
Bierce's Devil's Dictionary contained definitions like "Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage," and "Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding," and "Happiness: an agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another."
Haven’t seen conservative defined like that around here before. But the word “conservative” does imply keeping the status quo, which is why I no longer like calling myself a conservative becasue I hate the status quo.
What’s missing IMO from the dialect and characterization of “conservatism” is the idea of freedom, which idea out country is founded on.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when Goldwater and Buckley were starting the conservative movement, there was much talk about who was really a conservative. There were some who believed what people call RINOs were the real conservatives, because they accepted how things are and didn't want to change things, but Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan carried the day and defined conservatism largely in terms of individual liberty.
Just what is it Trump has said that offends you?
Please be specific.
LOL...this is rich coming from a stick-my-finger-in-the-wind GOPer.
Oops, should have read further...thought it was about Joe Scareface on MSNBC.
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.