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.
Jeb won’t be the nominee.
I am unable to read farther than this :
“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.”
Hello, idiot. [Not SeekAndFind] We voters have always been sitting here with our principles, looking over those who run, finding the one guy who comes closest to the principles, and watching him lose to the GOPe guy.
We are bleeping DONE. It’s a kabuki dance. The rage is not counter productive; it’s productive. We really do want to kill both statist parties.
>> Trump represents, as Leon Wolf has eloquently written in Red State, not any sort of conservatism, but a right-wing mob ...
Eloquent?
These establishment jerks would have favored British rule over Washington’s liberation. Different scenario, different players, but the risk of change is not that dissimilar.
Do some research and look at a picture of her property before you judge. Keep in mind she was offered a fortune.
I was critical of Cruz on TPA, the Corker Bill and H1B visas. But none of those votes or policies abridge individual rights.Wow, BFD, you were critical. SO WHAT?
You don't think a nuclear Iran coupled with all the money we're going to pay them could possibly, somehow "abridge individual rights"? Yours and your grandma's individual rights and property might be the last thing you'll have to worry about.
That's really, really pathetic.
OH BTW, Iran would make Cruz look like a meek little girl scout compared to how they would react to a real man with balls...And that Corker Bill you take so lightly could leave blood on Cruz's hands... Maybe yours.
What’s with PJ Media. Has it gone over to the Dark Side. Was it always that way? Or is it just another Erik Erikson type RedState front?
Geraghty is a douche. Just because people use the words freedom and liberty in speeches does not make them champions of those things. Look at GW Bush for example. He used those words a lot in his speeches. He gave us the DHS, TSA, NSA spying on Americans, TARP, the largest increase in welfare since 1965 up to this term, a massively bigger government and many other freedom killing things. I guess Geraghty thinks that as long as he mentioned freedom, the stuff he actually did does not matter? I do not know if Obama regularly uses those words in his speeches but it would not surprise me if he did.
They are peas in a pod. I have not trusted Rush in years.
But that's not the situation with Iran, is it?
With Iran, you have the right to refuse the customer, who has repeatedly, and very publically, stated that they intend to kill that 'someone'.
Now, to use your words 'Are you, the customer or the knife the one that abridged the victims right to life?'?
Railroads
Freeways
Electricity
Natural Gas
Canals
Lakes
Every one of those things has forced people, even little old ladies to move.
Where Kelo was insane was allowing a city to force people off property strictly to allow a city to gain revenue. Without Kelo there would still be imminent domain and you have directly benefited from it. All of those things involve some crony capitalism and only Jesus Christ can stop that.
How many Natural Rights will you retain if a nuke goes off near your home, idiot?
“He is just as sick of the GOPe as we are...or “
He is. No doubt. He is no longer in the inside beltway crowd. He used to talk about inside events but now he is nothing but a social commentator like Fox News or CNN.
This country owes Rush a great deal for educating the masses for more than 15 years before he no longer had inside information to share, but he, like all the news media, no longer has anything to report on.
Using the words is immaterial. North Korea and Red China use the words "People's Republic", and they mean nothing. Leftists use the word "freedom" but try to reserve it for themselves alone.
And no, I'm not calling Walker or Cruz liberals. They mean it, they don't just mouth it.
The word "steal" implies that there was no fair compensation. He acted within the law, a law of which I am no fan and one that can be abused. But I don't see Trump as being the abuser, but the government.
Trumpswab?
Then you are ignorant of the facts.
Key words are “her property”. I met Mrs Kelo at a rally at her home and she did not want to “ sell” her property either. But guess what? The government took it anyway to line the pockets of a developer.
You’re a liberal. Sorry but that is the fact of the matter if you think Cruz’ vote on that bill makes him liable for jihadists nut actions. But if it is any consolation there are well over a hundred million Americans who would agree with you.
You know this is getting tiresome. You liberals do not even know how to spell eminent domain, have no clue that Kelo was about taking a private citizens property to benefit another private citizen and would make excuses for Trump if he was in n to making a Muslim his running mate.
Only a liberal would assign responsibility to a Cruz vote in the senate for the actions of jihadists nuts. But you are not alone here at FR. Plenty of liberals supporting government theft of property.
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.