Posted on 09/19/2015 5:43:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week, National Review’s Jim Geraghty published what may be the most insightful essay yet [1] on the difference between the conservative movement and Donald Trump and his followers. Geraghty has noticed a telling reticence on Trump’s part to utter such words as “freedom” or “liberty.” By contrast, Geraghty notes that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker used the word “freedom” six times in the 179-word announcement of his plan to replace ObamaCare, and Ted Cruz used “freedom” twice and “liberty” eleven times in his announcement speech at Liberty University, not counting references to the university itself.
The reason for this lack of keywords is that Trump’s principles are very different from those who are inspired by the likes of the late William F. Buckley; he is indifferent to the size and scope of big government and quite indifferent to Constitutional guarantees of citizens’ rights. For instance, Robert VerBruggen pointed out several months ago [2] that Trump has not only been a serial abuser of the eminent domain provision of the Constitution but, having lost a case in which the state of New Jersey tried and failed to dispossess an elderly widow of her property on his behalf, even welcomed the disastrous Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case in 2005.
All of Trump’s campaign rhetoric centers on power politics — strength, American greatness — often in terms which would not look out of place in a speech by some nationalistic autocrat. And this doesn’t appear to bother his followers one bit, or at least no more than they are bothered by his disgusting boorishness concerning women (ask Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina) or his schoolyard-bully taunts of any Republicans who criticize him (as Bobby Jindal and, most recently, Rick Perry and Ben Carson can testify).
But what I find truly shocking is not Trump’s behavior, which has been on display for decades, nor his ability to attract a certain type of follower. What I find shocking is Rush Limbaugh’s defense of Trump in the face of Geraghty’s analysis.
On September 11th, Limbaugh read Geraghty’s piece on air, and then responded by alleging that Trump doesn’t need to use those keywords because he embodies freedom and liberty in his actions, and is indeed the object of envy for those who don’t innately exhibit those qualities.
The reason I’m shocked comes from Limbaugh’s assertion that he hasn’t endorsed any of the candidates. Yet he and several other talk-show hosts have been instrumental in empowering Trump. They imply consent of his boorishness, effectively egging him on to say ever more outrageous things while Limbaugh and company blow on the glowing coals of rage at the perceived Washington establishment, regardless of party. What Limbaugh has done here is to conflate license and libertinism with freedom and liberty, and he’s surely sophisticated and intelligent enough to know the difference.
I am not suggesting that the frustration may not be justified; I’m suggesting that the rage buoying up Trump’s campaign is a very dangerous and ultimately counter-productive political emotion, one which threatens to trump (pun intended) the principles on which the movement has been based on for the last 60-odd years.
Far from being a champion of liberty in any rational sense, Trump is the embodiment of crony capitalism. In the first Republican debate, and several times subsequently, he has openly boasted of borderline, if not actual, political corruption, quid-pro-quo contributions and payments he has made to politicians at all levels in order to secure favors for his projects. He is (as I mentioned above) wholeheartedly in favor of government misuse of eminent domain and the disastrous Kelo decision of SCOTUS.
Trump represents, as Leon Wolf has eloquently written in Red State, not any sort of conservatism, but a right-wing mob similar to the left-wing mobs evident in such phenomena as Sanders rallies and BlackLivesMatter. About a month ago, I suggested on this site that this was a worrying phenomenon on the Republican fringe. Now, I’m not so sure. As I’m sure Victor Davis Hanson would agree, this was precisely the Achilles’ heel of Greek democracy which made our founding fathers so wary of direct democracy. When any issue passionately polarizes a society with no chance of compromise (e.g., abortion is either the termination of a human life or potential human life, or it is the excision of a group of cells, no more significant than paring your fingernails, two positions between which there can be no compromise), two mobs will materialize and think with their glands rather than their brains, resulting in what the Greeks termed stasis, in effect, civil war. Inevitably, both mobs end up baying for the restoration of order, and usually a tyrant rides to the rescue.
As poet and playwright Zoë Akins first said in the title of a long-forgotten play, the Greeks had a word for it.
Is Trump, together with the American left in general, right? Has the carefully constructed, politically balanced and fine-tuned system created by our founding fathers deteriorated to the point where two angry, unprincipled gangs interested only in crushing the other side and exercising naked power confront each other like schoolboys shouting taunts at each other over a line drawn in the sand?
That, my friends, depends upon us.
No moron. I oppose government theft of private property. You support it. That is the liberal position. Taking from a to give to b. Learn to live with it.
I didn't say he was liable, those are words you chose. I wouldn't have chosen those words.
In your earlier example of the knife being sold to a known killer who is professing to kill again, the store isn't liable, but they are complicit in the killing.
I say that Cruz's vote for Corker is perhaps one of two things;
A vote cast with ignorance of the effect of his vote, which calls into question his wisdom.
OR
Cruz knew the effect of his vote, which would raise the question of why he cast that vote, as his love of America is without question. I have my own theories, and they align with theories Trump has proposed.
Either way, Cruz is not liable, only complicit.
It's your test, you wrote the questions, and you get to determine which are the correct answers.
However, to the reader of the criteria you've set forth, an answer to why the support for Corker would seem to be an important one in 'the protection of life' section.
Rush is right; NRO is GOPe.
Lol. Disingenuous does not begin to describe that nonsense. You said Cruz violated the right to life test by voting to delay the release of Iranian assets. Complete and utter nonsense that only makes sense if the writer of that crap is a nutty liberal. Cheers!
John McCain is a National Review conservative.
You know the old saying ‘If you’re getting flak you’re over the target’?
Go back and look how many personal attacks you’ve ‘fired’ at me trying to defend a shaky position. One for every response by you to serious questions I raise.
You obviously don’t have anything of substance to fire at me, only harmless flak.
Cruz is a good guy, I was the first on FR to repeatedly champion him as a VP for Trump.
Great post. The clear-eyed on this site have been making the same points about Trump for quite some time.
Rush is right 98 percent of the time. This is one of the two percent, and that’s unfortunate because the Republic hangs in the balance.
No I don't but I recognize the necessity and so do you. I am not in favor of Kelo as such, of course I do not live under the illusion of property ownership in the first place. You are merely a renter and the tax man can raise your rent anytime he wants. Time was, long past, when homestead exemption was designed to keep the government from taxing you out of your homestead.
You rationalize theft by government to support Trump. I know you are not a liberal but supporting Kelo is a liberal position. What you and other supporters should be doing is getting Trump to renounce Kelo.
I think the entire premise is wrong.
Rush is not supporting Trump anymore than Mark Levin, Hannity or other Conservative commentators.
By that I mean that they are not supporting him, but are defending him against the left wing attack machine and the GOPe as well.
While I may occasionally post a somewhat negative analysis of trump, they have stayed out of the fray and by doing that only appear to be supporting him or by inference, endorsing him.
I find myself being somewhat careful in my criticism as well. I am enjoying the political silly season for the first time in ages.
There is along way to go folks.....My primary support and vote was written in stone before Cruz announced, and he was first, if I recall correctly.
The general election slate has yet to be formed, and anything can happen between now and then.
No I don't but you use Kelo to trash Trump. I point out that Kelo was wrong but Eminent Domain is not, it is a sad but necessary evil.
And on the other side, Trump and Cruz are the only ones who have 'em.
Look friend. You don’t understand the “TAKINGS” clause. Eminent domain does not allow TAKINGS for private economic development. Google Justice Scalia and Kelo.
One other thing. Trump trashes Trump by supporting Kelo. What if he supported Roe or Dred Scott?
They are peas in a pod. I have not trusted Rush in years
_____________________________________
I do not share your opinion, but I respect your right to it and to voice it.
This is my fear with Trump as well. We are ushering in someone "to get things done", and he is used to doing "whatever it takes to succeed"... Limited government principles do not seem to be a part of the plan. This is something to be very concerned about, and not many people are discussing it.
You don’t see any similarities between Rush and Trump? Why else would they flock together?
Big ego, golf, hot wives.
Yes there are many similarities, LOL
I think it’s both.
80% number 2
20% number 1
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.