I have been collecting some thoughtful articles that I hope will prove helpful. I have stayed away from what I thought of as polemical arguments. The order of discussion of the candidates is the in order in which I have my preferences today. I like the diversity represented in this field of candidates. The order reflects that appreciation. I would also note that two Hispanics and an African-American received 60% of the IA vote. When we add Carly, one would like to think that charges of bigotry by Republicans would stop. I know they will not, but it would be nice. In the Republican Party, the issue is ideas. If you have good ideas, you will find support, regardless of race, gender, or religious persuasion.
If you would like a serious analysis of the political landscape, Angelo Codevilla wrote an analysis in 2010 that is scholarly and I think thought-provoking. The article is not for the faint of heart. It is a long scholarly article. Since I have not referred to it before, I will put it here. It actually deserves more reflection by me than what I am giving it here. I offer a discussion with some pertinent quotes for those who might not think they have the time for the article. The "faith" is that they know better than the people. They are the best and brightest, while the rest of the country is largely racist and bigoted. This is bipartisan, but "Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives." They receive solid support from those who self-identity as Democrats. The Republican Party receives solid support from only about one-fourth of its voters. This one fourth you might call "establishment," junior members of the ruling class, but the rest are restless with any of the ruling class. His concern is that the ruling class has become largely monolithic in its thinking, but that America has never had this. "How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them?" "What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat..." "it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class." "Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that "we" are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation's paradigm that "all men are created equal"?" "the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class." They create dependent economics through taxation, spending, and regulation. "our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support." The ruling class wants to change the culture. "The ruling class is keener to reform the American people's family and spiritual lives than their economic and civic ones." "It believes that the Christian family (and the Orthodox Jewish one too) is rooted in and perpetuates the ignorance commonly called religion, divisive social prejudices, and repressive gender roles, that it is the greatest barrier to human progress because it looks to its very particular interest." The ruling class wants to meddle in the affairs of nations: "its default solution to international threats has been to commit blood and treasure to long-term, twilight efforts to reform the world's Vietnams, Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans, believing that changing hearts and minds is the prerequisite of peace and that it knows how to change them." "our ruling class does not like the rest of America." He contrasts the ruling class with the country class, some of which focus on merit, some of which value traditional family, and some of which want to focus on issues at home rather than abroad. "The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance." The country class seeks to use the Republican Party has its vehicle, but has largely failed, the Bush family being the primary means of blocking them. "The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require empowering a rival party at least as disciplined. What other antidote is there to government by one party but government by another party? Yet this logic, though all too familiar to most of the world, has always been foreign to America and naturally leads further in the direction toward which the ruling class has led. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats' mirror image." "Consider: The ruling class denies its opponents' legitimacy." They are "uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent, fundamentalist, or all of the above."
March 1 primary verifies my concern. The Republican Party will end up with a nominee who will not break 40% of the vote.
At this time, philosophical matters regarding the role of government seem to mean nothing. This issue used to be what united Republicans. However, Trump has changed that. We now have a person in the Republican race that rejects the conservatism of Reagan as well as the Bush legacy. He rejects free trade. He does not want to face the growth of entitlement spending. This is a first in my involvement in politics since the mid-1970s. For me, this is the danger of Trump. If he were to win it all, there would be no genuinely conservative party in America. Where do I go? I am quite discouraged with the political class of both parties. It looks like I may need to ponder a separate article on that theme.
The debate on February 25 was the first time anyone has taken a direct shot at Trump, and it came from Marco. I liked what he said. It seemed as if he shook Trump a little. I am sure it will not shake the hold on the 1/3 of the primary goers who are for Trump, but hopefully it will keep his numbers in that range. With so many candidates on the stage, it would have been difficult to do all of this before this moment. However, is it too late? I do not know. My problem with Marco has been that he should have let the good debate stand on its own. He should have gone on to what has attracted many of us to him. He has a Reagan quality. Trading insults with Donald is not a winner, because Donald will always out-insult.
I also saw the first full speech by Marco. I could like him. A lot. If he would stick to that message, he may have a chance.
Count me as one disturbed by what appears to be genuine hatred arising among the top three on the Republican side. Denis Prager has been at the receiving end of hatred due to his support of Rubio, and shares some of his frustration.
I think many of us puzzle that the intelligent people we send to Washington, DC cannot get together and make some agreements that will benefit us all. Of course, the differences are real and fundamental. On some big issues, it will not happen. However, on matters of actual governance, we need leaders who know how to work within the constitutional system to govern. It does not seem as if we have much of that.
In a theme related to the popularity of Trump, but also the attraction of people like Cruz and Carson, I understand the frustration many conservatives have with the way Washington works. However, divided government is frustrating by nature. Divided government reflects the division among the American people. "We the people" seem confused as to what we want out of government. In fact, Cruz in particular receives ovations for saying that he does not work well with Washington Cartel. I would urge fellow conservatives to consider that we need to listen to other Republican Senators, who are clearly not working with Cruz. He has alienated the very people with whom he would need to work as President.
Marco Rubio
What I like about Marco is that he views himself in the line of Ronald Reagan. He understands the importance of limited government, of domestic policy carried out in the states, lower taxes, and less regulation. He values the constitution and will nominate judges who value the original intent. His youth is inspiring. His Cuban background and his personal story are both inspiring. He will bring new focus to the war against militant Islam.
My concern is that he may have a similar vision to that of George W. when it comes to foreign involvements with the military. Starting with Vietnam, I am not one who thinks that American military involvement is the best answer. This is particularly true in Muslim countries.
I am glad the third debate in February went so well for him. He took on Trump. Of course, Trump fired back the next day with Christie endorsing him. The attacks on Trump as a businessman were effective. Some conservatives seem willing to make a deal with the devil in supporting Trump. Some evangelicals seem willing to do the same. I am not.
I am glad that in the second debate in February Marco more than redeemed himself from the previous poor debate. He showed why some of us like him so much. Red State has endorsed Marco. Jennifer Rubin offers an account of why the debate went so well for him. My concern with Rubio is that he defended George W. Bush so strongly. He did a better job that Jeb. He has a strong sense of what it will take to defeat ISIS. I like that. Will he lead to greater military involvement than is necessary or needed?
The debate before the New Hampshire primary was not a good one for Marco in the opening 30 minutes. After that, he did well. My puzzlement was the inappropriateness of repeating his belief that Barak Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Now, I happen to agree with him, and therefore not with Trump or Christie. Obama is not incompetent. He is an ideologue who wants to take America apart and re-construct along the lines of some version of a European socialist state. Marco understands that very well, much better than other candidates. However, his repetition bothered me. Something like, "Governor Christie, Donald, you need to educate yourselves on what this President is up to" would have been far more appropriate. By the way, Leon H. Wolff notes that Christie has his own pat answers. He needs to learn get away from Obama and focus on Hillary. The rest of his debate was very good. His comeback on abortion was insightful and powerful.
He came in surprisingly high in IA, placing third and just barely behind Trump. NH was obviously devastating to the campaign. He accepted responsibility for it. He vows it will not happen again. I have lived long enough to see politicians have bad debates and rise from them. Whether this will be such an example, I do not know. South Carolina will tell much about the future for Rubio. I still have hopes. I think he has a solid vision of the role of the federal government, he has the knowledge to guide us in defending the country, and he has the best chance of beating Hillary.
He presents his position on the issues on his web site. I like the idea of a Cuban-American becoming President, but my primary concern is the issues. After the Simi, California debate, which focused on foreign policy, I must say that he communicates the vision well. Even where I might disagree, I have respect. I remain convinced after the CNBC debate. His strategy, from what I hear, is that he wants to make a "push" in Iowa and New Hampshire in January. I hope that means he will be out more on the shows and the political circuit. People need to see him far more than they do. One of the issues I have had with all the attention to Trump is that it is too early. In January, it will be time for the candidates to make a move in the early states. At this point, I can only say that I hope the strategy works.
A pleasant surprise has been that Rush Limbaugh has had positive comments to make about Marco. Given the hatred that some in conservative radio has of Marco, it was courageous of Rush at some level. He knew Marco and has no interest I putting him out of the conservative movement because of his involvement in the immigration deal.
I do not appreciate the attacks from the Cruz and Bush campaigns at all. His not being present at certain votes does not bother me in the slightest. His past vote on immigration is of no bother as well. Frankly, that is a plus. In addition, what he says now is a plus. However, George Will has pointed to potential weaknesses in Marco. This is the type of article that I would like to think Marco is mature enough not to respond defensively and learn from these potential weaknesses. He will have to face them if he is President. I do not view the weaknesses as disqualifying, but he needs to listen.
Mark A. Thiessen elevates Marco over Cruz in terms of what the former did in a practical way against the Affordable Care Act. However, Sahill Kapur says the numbers of his budget do add up to a balanced budget.
Since the rise of national security in this campaign, Rubio has gone up in the polls. My concern with him is that around him appear to be the "neo-conservatives" who led the charge into the Middle East under George W. I wish he exhibited more hesitancy to use military force. On the other hand, we are at a time, in my judgment, when ISIS needs to be taken out. Many people I trust in the military actually think this can be done quickly, and with a modest number of troops, maybe 10-20,000, along with Sunni troops. This is a tough matter, but now that terrorists are running country, the country (ISIS) needs to be taken out.
Whenever I hear him speak, I am impressed. He has what some of us might call a conservative vision of what American can be. For me, this is primary. He seems willing to engage the battle. Nicholas Riccardi of the AP has provided a relatively balanced review of the Rubio tax plan. Star Parker shares her early sense that Rubio may have that Reagan touch. She also writes about how his understanding of "black lives matter" is on target.
The New York Times provided some levity. They must think he is dangerous from the perspective of their liberal bias. They ran stories that he had two driving violations in 20 years and that he had a "luxury speed boat." My understanding is that for many who live in Miami, the driving violation should earn him an award for best driver. You can find a picture of the boat. Ramesh Ponnuru digs into the supposed bad decisions regarding personal finances and thinks that he is like most Americans. Michelle Ye Hee Lee says the accusations concerning use of the Republican Party charge card in Florida that it is much ado about nothing. Even his boots became a point of attack.
Albert Hunt has written an interesting article on the possibility of Republicans needing to make a choice between Marco and Cruz. I think that would be very interesting. I agree with him that both Trump and Carson will fade, although for quite different reasons. Trump will fade when people get tired of his bluster (I will do the best, it will be the greatest, etc.) Carson will fade because his lack of political experience will undermine this fine, exemplary man. Jonathan Bernstein thinks that Marco is now in November 2015 the most likely nominee. However, to read this article is also to read of his failure to predict well. In some ways, the article is humorous. Was he smiling ironically as he wrote it?
When I think ahead to the campaign against Hillary, I still think Marco represents the best chance for a solid victory at the national level and that he will help at the local level. If we add a good woman candidate with him as vice-president, it would be almost unstoppable, I think.
John Kasich
I have long liked him and followed his work in Congress as well as Governor. I was reminded of why in watching him at the Jack Kemp forum. He would find ways to get things done and work across the aisle. However, right now, many Republicans do not seem interested in that. I like the way he has integrated his faith journey into his presentation of himself.
The "however" with him is his performance on the debate stage. His performance in the Simi, California debate was disappointing. He has not done well in the debates. In October, he said things that have not helped him. He is someone who does not seem to campaign well at the national level. His off the cuff statements about his competitors do not wear well. Frankly, although I am confident he is a good thinker about things that matter, he is not able to communicate that on the national stage. In fact, at times, he seems petty and out of touch. He seems like the person who tries too hard to do or be something that he is not. After the Las Vegas debate, I think he will not go far.
A Newsweek interview in the Jewish World Review offers some background. Margaret Carlson promotes this candidate on the basis of his record, but also points out that he is not pure enough for some conservatives. David Shribman says this is his moment. Albert Hunt likes John Kaisch, contrasting his Ohio popularity with the other unpopular governors on this list. Amber Philipps wants to get acquainted with him.
Ben Carson
He offers his position on issues on his web site. Since the rise of the terror issue after the Paris attacks, his attractiveness has declined. I must say that when I see him interviewed, I have the feeling of wanting to help him say what he needs to say. He takes so long, in contrast to other candidates. My sense of things after the Las Vegas debate is that he is simply not making it with enough people, mostly because he has not been able to convince people that he is ready to be President on Day 1, regardless of the respect people have for him personally.
I like the way he weaves his faith story into his presentation of himself. Having a black president who is actually successful would be wonderful. However, I share the concern about his readiness. I wish he would have run for Senator, for example. He did nothing to help himself in the Simi, California debate. He needs to demonstrate knowledge on the enemies that confront the USA today. He did not have a breakthrough moment, and he needs one every debate. The CNBC debate did not help him either. As much as I like him, he is not finding a way to demonstrate his knowledge of the issues. Politicians learn to do that. William Kristol offers an interesting reconsideration of Carson and his experience. Worth reading. In contrast, Jonah Goldberg says it is too late for him to get up to speed on foreign policy and terrorism, which is a concern rising after the Paris attacks in November 2015.
Star Parker writes about the power of the personal story of this candidate. Joy Overbeck offers the same through the eyes of his mother. A blogger wanted to like him, but points to a blunder in Iowa to say that he is not ready for prime time. Justin Haskins also has a concern for his readiness for the presidency, but thinks the vice-presidency would be a possibility. Arthur Schaper has a similar concern, noting public utterances he has had to retract or for which he made apology. Rich Lowry writes positively of his non-political alternative to Trump. Michelle Malkin writes of his wife. Debra J. Saunders thinks he stills needs to show he has the executive experience necessary, but she has other positive things about him. It makes sense that as he rose in the polls his opponents would attack his personal story. Politico in November released questions regarding connections with West Point. David French briefly offers that the Politico lied. Rush Limbaugh has offered a strong defense of Carson. One transcript refers to the Politico article as a lie. Another transcript broadens his attack to say that the mainstream media, which has become the communication arm of the Hillary campaign, has a coordinated attack upon Carson. The fact is, I think, Progressives cannot let stand a conservative Black candidate, witness the hit job on Herman Cain in 2012, which were also fabrications.
He offers his plan to defeat ISIS, as of November 20, 2015.
A few press-generated issues come to mind. I think one of the worst things one can be, according to the MSM, is a devout Christian. The puzzling thing here is that Christians, especially evangelical-conservative-orthodox Christians, have been very tolerant, given the rapid movement of culture away from its values. The antagonism against Christianity and its values has its match in the lack of concern for the rise of Islam. For me, all of this is puzzling. The second worst thing one can be is a politically conservative black man. Dr. Ben Carson combines both. He has a target on his back. Thus, some in the Press have taken things Carson has said and twisted them to mean something Carson would never say. As Carson has said, this is why many Americans do not trust the "mainstream" media represented by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, and Washington Post. This represents strong opposition, but when one adds much of Academia and much of Hollywood, it becomes imposing. Among the easiest things to do is twist words. Here are a few examples. Star Parker defends what Dr. Carson said about not promoting a Muslim for President and expecting any Muslim running for office needing to renounce Sharia Law. Wesley Pruden defends his statement as well. David Limbaugh defends what he said about the Oregon school shooting. Ron Fournier, an example of the lack of trustworthiness in listening to Carson, makes his objection to what Carson says about government and guns. Thomas Sowell offers his reflections on the attacks on his autobiography from the Press and from Trump. Brent Bozell has written a book on the lies contained in the autobiographies that Obama wrote. The link is to an excerpt from the book. The positive is that it shows the little interest media had in Obama lying, contrasting to the misunderstanding 14-year old Carson may have had about West Point. Of course, the deeper issue here is that when you read the Politico story, it fabricates its own data to suggest things that were simply not true in order to destroy a black candidate. In contrast, it showed no interest in actual lies of the liberal. This is not anything new, but it is frustrating.
Ted Cruz
He has a news portion on his web site.
Rich Lowry has written his reasoning for supporting Cruz over Trump. Of course, Trump is not a conservative and to Lowry Cruz is the true conservative in this election process. Jonah Goldberg also seems to favor Cruz. David Limbaugh has come out solidly for Cruz and in the process says we have no idea what Trump will do as President.
David Brooks has written an article getting a lot of press. It points to a disturbing incident in his political career that makes me put him further down the list. With Cruz, it is a matter of "How do I not like thee? Let me count the ways." He sounds like a preacher, in a very bad sense. He reminds me of a used car salesperson, trying to sell me something I do not want. He has made it virtue that no one else in the Senate supports him in his fights. In other words, he does not play well with others.
Here is further reason for me to place him this low. I have placed Trump at the bottom. Cruz will not go after Trump on any of the outlandish things he has said. Even a modest, "Oh, that is just The Donald" would have been nice. However, he went after Marco. Now, many of us who do not like Trump have Cruz and Rubio in some type of one-two arrangement. His attacks on Rubio, however, were not even accurate. Leon Wolff has identified issue. Mona Charen also points to the dishonesty of Cruz regarding his presentation of his views. Curt Anderson makes the case that Cruz is more narcissistic than is Trump. He has specific incidents of appeasing a crowd rather than speaking honestly of his beliefs.
Of course, his Hispanic background is attractive. He has said many things I like. He is an intelligent man. He can make a sound argument. I do not like the fact that when he has staked out a position in the Senate, only one or two others join him. I guess that fact attracts some conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity. He sounds too much like a preacher for me. He sounds like someone who has something to sell, but you are never quite sure if what he is selling is a good product. However, his performance in the Las Vegas debate on CNN in December was impressive. Byron York, after Steve Deace of Iowa endorsed him, examines the increase in support for Cruz since the debate. George Will describes his election strategy of energizing conservatives to come to the polls, a strategy Obama perfected. My assessment is that such a strategy obviously can work of the messenger is right. Reagan had a similar strategy. I do not think Cruz is the right messenger. Jennifer Rubin offers six reasons Cruz has a difficult path to the nomination. Debra J Saunders explores whether he even qualifies as a natural born citizen.
Here is my "Please No" list.
Donald Trump
People puzzle over the attraction of Trump to so many likely Republican primary voters. I confess my puzzlement. Angelo Codevilla gives the best explanation I have read of the fascination with Trump and why he opposes Trump. He writes of the frustration that many Americans have with the ruling class, which is progressive and Democrat, that finds expression in Trump. Thomas Sowell expresses his disagreement with the Trump campaign. He laments with the concern that when we need maturity after the disaster of Obama, we will get Trump. Mona Charen puts him together with Bernie Sanders as a demagogue. She also gave tips to Trump opponents for certain areas of attack. Religious leader Max Lucado has offered a perspective on simple decency that should disqualify Trump, especially as he declares himself a Christian and holds up a Bible. In 2011, Jonathan Hoenig said that while Trump is a businessman, his business policies are not in line with capitalism. Mark Cunningham has written of how Trump has a new way to win. I hope that the following will help others think through the process. National Review came out with an edition labeled "Against Trump." People like Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell, Dana Loesch, and Brent Bozell III are hardly the hated "establishment." Some are for Cruz. I wish Rush and Hannity would ban the word "establishment" when it comes to analyzing this nomination process. People have many reasons for adopting the position they do. It is not all about maintaining the establishment. In fact, much of the debate is about method rather than the goal, as I hope to show a little later. Jonah Goldberg was glad for the February 25 debate and its attack on Trump, considers it unfortunate that an attack on his governing philosophy is not effective, and that the only attack that will work is that he is a shallow, vain, bullying man.
Sadly, David Brooks offered a ridiculous piece opposing Trump in which his attack was upon those who vote for him as desiring authoritarianism, defined as parents who desire their children to be respectful. This attempt to discover the authoritarian-leaning voter is highly suspect and biased.
Anger. Trump has made a big thing about being angry, the label Nikki Haley applied to him. Bernie Sanders has done the same. I offer a modes thought. Anger is one of the 7 deadly sins of the Christian tradition. Angry people get the attention. Angry people, under the right circumstances, can get their way. I do not claim great insight here, but it seems to me this election cycle is for anger. I hope calm thought and thoughtfulness will prevail. Of course, one can be angry in a way that leads to appropriate change. It would be hard to fight for justice without some anger. However, I am wrestling with the "righteousness" of the anger that I am seeing. I am not so sure it is "righteous."
The Pope and Donald Trump - An unusual moment in the campaign. In February 2016, the Pope offered some comments on Trump and his Christianity. As reported in the NYT:
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico. Asked whether he would try to influence Catholics in how they vote in the presidential election, Francis said he “was not going to get involved in that” but then repeated his criticism of Mr. Trump, with a caveat. “I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that,” Francis said. “We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.” - My humble offering is that the Pope has made an error. You could argue that the Trump position on building a wall to secure the border is not a Christian position, I suppose, but to say he is not a Christian for holding that position is just strange. He needs to say that his English is not that good, that he would not judge someone's faith, and then clarify. As to the substance, Trump could have said that he is not only for a wall, but, as he has said, "a big beautiful door," which would also be like a bridge between the two countries. As always with Trump, if anything, this will help him with voters.
Let us discuss Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for a moment. Recently, Trump and Cruz are going at each other. Albert Hunt discusses how the supporters differ. The difficulty for me is that I do not like either one. I cannot say that I have had this experience before. As for Trump, some of his opponents have said that Hillary would beat him easily. If so, I ask, what does this say about his opponents in the Republican field? If he were to win the nomination, I do think Hillary would beat him easily. However, my hope is that someone else will be the nominee. He has changed the equation dramatically. Barack Obama is the primary reason for the rise of Donald Trump. I do not mean this to be a polemical matter or even a partisan one. However, throughout the Obama presidency, the policies adopted regarding both immigration and terror have seemed weak and ineffective to many Americans. Someone was going to tap into that perception of things. Philosophically, this is in line with Hegel. Once the primary theme becomes the agenda that Obama has, it becomes "natural" for its opposite to arise, and Donald Trump has tapped into that opposite. However, the opposite to progressive Obama is not necessarily conservative. Yes, it will be patriotic, concerned with physical threats from Islamic militancy, and rein in the federal government at some level. With Donald Trump, we have someone who has done so in the manner of a celebrity. He figures out a way to say something that will grab the media attention. This attention gets him high numbers in the polls. It also gets him free media. He has spent little of his money on the campaign thus far. We can see this strategy in the way he makes policy suggestions. The change began with the way he focused on immigration. His focus on immigration has brought the frustration with this issue to the fore. I see many people in both parties very concerned about the favors granted to illegal immigrants vs. citizens. Many people also do not want their illegal behavior rewarded while those who go through the process legally get pushed to the back of the line. The change has continued with the way he says he will deal with Syrian refugees and with the war against ISIS. Of course, Trump also gives the impression that he will get things done. I recall a similar attraction to Ross Perot in the 1992 election. However, I also sense an emotional connection with his energy, excitement, grandiose claims, and even his anger. The other way he keeps the media focused on him is the way he attacks his opponents if they start climbing in the polls. Interestingly, he often uses what the Democrats say about his Republican opponents. He did this with Scott Walker. He has done it with Ted Cruz. He has even used the Democrat attack against Scalia. Now, this supports something I have long held. Donald Trump is part Democrat and part Republican. He is more like the old-time conservative Democrat, which no longer exist. As a result, his policies, and sometimes his comments, reflect that focus.
I am not a Trump fan. If the two dominant political parties give me the choice of Trump and Hillary, let us just say that I will be deeply disappointed - Again. If I were guessing today, Trump will not win Iowa. I see a good chance that he will also lose New Hampshire. This will start the fade of Trump. He will get on his very successful business and celebrity career. The country will get on with the serious business of electing a President. Mona Charen has stated well my concern here as she focuses on what will happen to a conservative vision of government in this nomination process. George Will has nailed it once again on this matter. The election of Trump will mean the end of a conservative vision of governance.
I get the frustration with politicians. Rush Limbaugh says that Trump has tapped into the mistrust that many in the Republican base feel toward the inside the beltway Republicans. I figured that eventually, the Democrat part of Trump would come out in a way that Limbaugh would have to respond negatively. This happened with the way Trump criticized in December 2015. In my reading of conservative literature, I would agree that many feel frustrated. Yet, as Republicans attempt to follow the constitution, where the President does not, there are limits to what they can do, even with majorities in both Houses. My further concern, that Rush does not share, is that Trump will damage conservative ideas by his attacks on conservative and liberal ideas. He is charting his own course, and it is not the conservative ideas that Rush, Bill Buckley, George Will, and Ronald Reagan fought for. I keep having this suspicion that his real objective is the election of Hillary. For me, it is enough that George Will has spoken on this matter. Please read this article if you are still leaning this way. He has updated his concerns. Russell Moore makes it clear that it is time for Christians to stand up against Trump, given his December proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the USA temporarily. There are Muslims in the Middle East, such as the UAE, who are active in promoting a moderate and modern application of Islam. Trump does not seem to acknowledge that his plan would tend to push Muslims in the Middle East toward radical beliefs. Jennifer Rubin highlights the statement made by Paul Ryan against Trump. I like that these articles do not get into inflaming rhetoric of fascism and bigotry, both terms liberals throw around to every conservative. Violence against Trump could be the result. In an interview on MSNBC, Trump praised the leadership of Putin after Putin praised Trump. Quite honestly, in a normal world, this would be enough to defeat Trump. He also found it hard to offer comfort to Muslims in America who are peaceful, beyond his typical, "I have many Muslim friends." My belief is that once people start voting Trump will fade and we will get to the serious part of the campaign. To go to the extreme to make a point, if the best these parties can do is Trump and a woman who destroyed the lives of women her husband sexually abused to preserve her political future, it might be time to find another country in which to live. Charles Krauthammer has expressed well the problem with banning all Muslims from entering the USA.
He will not be the nominee. Jeff Jacoby shares why, beginning with the idea that it says many good things about the Republican Party that most Republicans have a negative view of him. William Kristol is also against Trump, but pauses to listen to what attracts people to him. Joseph Curl thinks that he is actually a Democrat plant, given his donations to the Democrat Party. Jonah Goldberg says he is a bad deal for the Party. In raising the issue of illegal immigration. He just did OK in the Simi, California debate. Judd Legum suggests that an essay written in the 1950s by Roland Barthes, a French philosopher, helps us understand the appeal of Trump by appealing to the difference between wrestling and boxing. It reads like someone who does not want to understand the complex reasons people support Trump.
Of course, he has raised the matter of illegal immigration. Terry Jeffrey says that 41.7% of the federal criminal cases are in the five districts across from Mexico. Linda Chavez takes a strong stance against what Trump says about illegal immigrants, but I have a few comments for her. S. E. Cupp discusses what Trump is doing right in July 2015, as he speaks in a fresh way. Eric Erickson discusses the nervousness that the political field has with the way Trump is getting so much attention in July 2015. Mona Charen shares some statistics regarding crime and illegal immigration, encouraging a calm conversation that Trump has precluded. Family Security Matters offers further statistics that would contradict Mona Charen and support Trump. I confess that the statistics I have seen are confusing. Thomas Sowell discusses his problems with Trump while discussing immigration. The Corner in the National Review offers a brief description of the immigration plan he offered in August 2015, which is largely the plan of Jeff Sessions. Ann Coulter explains why Trump is right concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Linda Chavez focuses on birthright citizenship and defends it. Michael Barone offers a discussion of the 14th amendment and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Mona Charen joins the ranks of this view of the 14th amendment. Charles Krauthammer takes on the immigration matter and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Michael Reagan thinks it time to take on Trump. George Will thinks the immigration plan could spell doom for the Republican Party. He also thinks that Trump will damage the Republican Party amidst minority voters and offers statistics to show why this is so dangerous. Helen Raleigh points to the Know-Nothing Party as a parallel, focusing on immigration.
Larry Kudlow discusses whether Donald Trump is a supply-side person on taxes and spending. He thinks Trump is. Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore point out that the last protectionist president America had was Republican Herbert Hoover, and that did not go well. The trade policy of Trump seems headed down that path.
Trump said some things in Iowa in November that puzzled many of us. Obviously, I am not a fan anyway. However, here are a few articles who explore the attacks Trump made against Carson and Iowa voters: Chris Cillizza, Kathleen Parker, and Jennifer Rubin.
Here are some analyses. David French has identified my primary concern, that Trump is popular because he is not a conservative. He also stresses that the "base" is not as conservative some analysts have thought. Michael Reagan says that Trump is a fake conservative and a danger to the Republican Party. Alicia Colon, who apparently knows The Donald, thinks he would have been wonderful mayor of NYC, but not a President. Kathleen Parker says one should not dismiss Trump, and offers her reasons. David Limbaugh wonders if Trump will awaken the "sleeping giant." Angelo Codevilla has some very good comments about the rise of Trump. After the Cleveland debate, George Will, whose wife works for the Scott Walker campaign, wrote that Trump is a counterfeit conservative. Will continues his probing in a September 2015 article. S. E. Cupp describes the Trump voter as not part of the base conservative (who thinks of Jeb Bush as establishment, purist) but rather disaffected moderates and even some on the Left. She points to some voters who say that if Bernie Sanders does not make it through the primaries, they are going for Trump. Dana Milbank writes of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley talking back to Trump. Nate Silver says we should not compare Trump and Sanders, and offers his reasons. Paul Greenberg refers to Trump as in the tradition of the ugly American, Pat Buchannan and the populist know-nothing party. Jeff Jacoby shows how Trump is in favor of expanding "eminent domain," something most conservatives would normally be against.
Miscellaneous Note:
Some things concern me about the Republican Party.
First, I reject the notion that the establishment within the Republican Party is not conservative. They (George Will, Krauthammer, et al) believe in limited government, less taxes, and defending the country, with a strong dose of patriotism. What defines the establishment is a style that involves respect for the constitutional process and, whether you like it or not, not closing down the government. Second, they do not like Cruz because Cruz is ... unlikeable. This is obvious, given that he has not been able to persuade other Senators to join him in the projects to which he has committed himself. Cruz will not do what is necessary in politics, which is one of the reasons Washington DC is so dysfunctional, namely, to gain governing coalitions. Third, I am glad that even Rush is starting to see that Trump does not represent conservatism. He is a hybrid. My view is that it would damage the Republican Party by abandoning core conservative principles. Fourth, the establishment, if it exists, would be better to do what it can to get Bush to support Rubio and get Bush out of the race. But you see, this is the problem. The word Establishment implies a shadowy group unknown to us who is manipulating and controlling things. It plays to our fear that we as voters are not in charge of our destiny. The reality is that everyone is trying to figure this out and what is best for their agenda and, one hopes, for the country.
I have never liked it when candidates spend their time attacking other candidates. Pointing out differences is fine, but when you are within the same party, you need to word yourself in such a way that you can justify supporting the person in the general election. Jeb might have gotten this started when he said he wanted to win the nomination without the base. However, with the entry of Trump, the focus has been attacking him and him attacking others, and this has led to further attacking of each other. Cruz has lied in ads against Marco. Bush is attacking Rubio for petty things. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity add to the problem, as they refer to some mysterious group of elites and establishment types. Supposedly, these persons (John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and others in Congressional leadership) have not opposed the Obama agenda. This would be a surprise to many of my liberal friends, many of whom think that is all Republicans have done, with the suspicion they have done so because of his race. For them, the Part of No is at work. In reality, the truth is in the middle. Yes, Republicans opposed Obamacare. However, I refer to the trade agreement as one example of cooperation with Obama. The goal is the same for Republicans in terms of opposing much of what Obama wants to do. The reason for this disagreement, I stress, is a difference in the role of the government in our lives. To put as neutral a spin on this as I can, Obama wants to maximize that role because he thinks it the best way to "help" all people. Republicans want to lessen that role in taxation, regulation, and general involvement, because they believe freedom is what works best for citizens. The country had the same divide in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was President. Some conservatives think Republicans should be more aggressive, such as closing down the government, in opposing Obama and the Democrat Party agenda. Others think it would be a disaster to go down that road.
Here are a few general topics that seem appropriate here. Immigration has been issue. George Will discusses the possibility that the Supreme Court might strike down as unconstitutional his executive decisions.
It will be obvious that I favor a conservative vision of governance. This was intellectual journey for me. You can find an brief account of this personal journey at the bottom of this blog.
Before I begin, a few authors have explored some general issues in the campaign. For example, Helen Raleigh explains why the Asian vote typically goes Democrat and how Republicans might change this. For another example, we can take the matter of Iraq and its continuing influence on the campaign. Steve Chapman explores the hesitancy of Republican candidates to deal with Iraq. If you look at the comments section, you should see one from me. Charles Krauthammer has his reaction to the question of a hypothetical here.
Trump has attacked George W. Bush. My first reaction was that this would be his end. That lasted a couple days. Suddenly, I remembered some of my own thoughts about the Bush effect on the nation and the conservative movement. George H. W. squandered the Reagan legacy. He had a 92% favorable rating immediately after the liberation of Kuwait. However, his presidency opened the door for Clinton, whom I view as a disaster. The only successes he had were due to the Republican Congress putting limits on his voracious desire for spending. The few years of a balanced budget were due to Republican control of Congress. Then, along came George W. He had the surprise of 9/11/2001, of course. He also took no action to deal with the looming financial crisis, to which Thomas Sowell has devoted some good studies as to its predictability and the failure of the administration to make changes that might have averted the financial crisis. His entry into Afghanistan made some sense, given the support that nation gave to Bin Laden. However, I had questions about his entry into Iraq. My problem was that after 9/11/2001, I engaged in a reading of the Quran, Islamic thought and history, and Jewish-Christian-Islam dialogues in Indianapolis. The conclusion to which I came was that Western democracies have no business getting too involved in Islamic countries. They live in different worlds. Their views of a just society vary widely and wildly. When the attack on Iraq occurred, my statement was, "I sure hope someone up there (government) knows something I do not." In other words, I knew America could win militarily, but how do you win "hearts and minds" devoted to the establishment of an Islamic State? I did not see how this war could end well. The same thought has been in mind with the approach of Obama. The Arab Spring has led to failed states and the rise of ISIS. The harsh reality of the Middle East and North Africa is that military dictatorships kept a lid on the radical Islamism of the area. Democracy can only work, as James Madison pointed out, with a moral base among the people. Islamism is a type of morality, I suppose, but not one that respects the role of rationality, pluralism of thought and religion, and the separation of religion and state. I say all of this to say that the Republican Party needs to get out of the "Bushes." I say this with no rancor. I think the Bush family would be wonderful people to know on an individual basis. Yet, George W. concluded with low approval ratings and gave Republicans a poor public image.
Here is a brief account of the second February debate, a heated exchange in which Rubio looked very good. Here is another account of the second debate and the dangers the divisiveness could be to the Party. Jennifer Rubin offers her analysis of this debate, with Bush and Rubio winning, Carson not showing up, and the rest losing.
The CNBC debate in October 2015 raised another issue. I suppose I think of moderators of the debate as in the background, the candidates in the foreground. The point is to ask questions that bring out what candidates believe and how they respond to the issues of the day. It was clear CNBC had a different view. The CNN debate had a different view as well. The agenda seemed in both cases to ridicule the candidates and bring them down. In general, to have any of the non-FOX news outlets moderate a debate is like putting the fate of the discussion into the hands of the biggest superpack the Democrat Party has. What is interesting is that the Democrat Party is getting by with not having a debate on FOX News. So, Republicans are put to the fate of their debates into the hands of the opposition, while the Democrats get by with not one debate in a venue they view as the opposition. In reality, the liberal commentators on FOX News challenge their party to do so as well. All of this makes one wonder if the Republican Party should not simply run the debate, choose the moderators, and allow news outlets to broadcast if they choose. Make it a newsworthy event for the 24 hour news cycle. My point is that these debates, while of interest to many, are actually for those who will vote in the Republican primaries. I should also say that the candidates need to stop talking about how bad the moderators were. They responded well. They responded together. It was good moment for the candidates. Time to move on.
After the last Obama State of the Union, Governor Nikki Haley delivered the Republican response. I read the speech of Nikki Haley. It is a wonderful speech. Debra J. Saunders has a nice of way of discussing her point about bipartisanship and Trump (without mentioning him by name). Kathleen Parker also has a nice article on this theme. I consider it unfortunate that Rush has followed the rest of the press in focusing upon one or two sentences. Many conservatives, such as Michelle Malkin, analyze it the same way. Her emphasis for half of the speech were specific places on which to disagree with what the President said. Actually, what Rush describes as an inability to point fingers was a part of the speech where she agreed with Rush's and Sean's criticism of the Republicans in Congress. Congressional Republicans bear some of the responsibility for not opposing effectively what Obama has done. Rush's interpretation of Nikki is simply wrong at that point. In any case, at a deeper level, I was furious with Rush. Rush spent the whole time the day after Obama's speech ripping into a successful Republican governor and almost nothing on Obama! Constant attacks on conservatives that Rush does not like, calling them (me) elite and establishment, is getting a bit much. An example is Cruz. Apparently, Cruz does not work well with others. He is unable to get fellow Republicans to join him in various efforts he has had in the Senate. Rush considers such lone wolf efforts a virtue, and I consider it a sign that he does not play well with others. Apparently, Rush has become that way as well! A conservative approach to governance is difficult enough to maintain against the human tendency to expand the power of government in the name of the common good. Now, Rush and Sean are helping conservatives turn on each other. Very bad.
Of course, we have some analysis of the horse race. In November 2015, Chris Cilizza offers an interesting ranking of his predictions as to who will win, ending with Marco. Charles Krauthammer offers a betting approach to both Republicans and Democrats, giving Marco and Hillary 3-1 odds, and Republicans a 55-45 advantage to win. Thomas Sowell considers the candidates as of August 2015. Arther Laffer says that regardless of who the Republican nominee is, Republicans will have a landslide victory. "Hillary's day is done."
Here is the promised account of my view of the role of government.
Jay Nordlinger once defined conservatism in a way I like.
"I believe that to be a conservative is to be for limited government. Personal freedom. The rule of law. The Constitution, and adherence to it. Federalism. Equality under the law. Equality of opportunity. Relatively light taxation. Relatively light regulation. Free enterprise. Property rights. Free trade. Civil society. The right to work. A strong defense. National security. National sovereignty. Human rights. A sound, non-flaky educational curriculum. School choice. A sensible stewardship over the land, as opposed to extreme environmentalism. Pluralism. Colorblindness. Toleration. E pluribus unum. Patriotism. Our Judeo-Christian heritage. Western civilization. I want to throw in, too, the right to life."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426758/what-conservatism-jay-nordlinger
I became a political conservative in my mid-20s, after reading people like George Will, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman. Arthur Brooks wrote a book that explores the moral case for conservatism, and Gabriella Hoffman summarizes the ideas. Among the major issues in the Republican Party recently is the difference between people who might call themselves "movement" conservatives, like the TEA Party, Hannity, and Limbaugh, and the "Establishment" Republicans, such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Matt Lewis has offered an excellent analysis, using the quick change in the views that movement conservatives have of Paul Ryan and Donald Trump as examples. The issue he raises is that the division is "us vs. them" and not "liberal vs conservative." I was struck in a recent radio broadcast that Rush Limbaugh claimed not to know how Jeb differs from Obama. I think he is way off on this. In fact, both Rush and Hannity have gone the direction of claiming that establishment Republicans are liberals. The reason is the immigration issue. However, to focus on one issue in a matter like this is unreasonable. Some Republicans would like a more assertive (aggressive) stance in relation to the Democrat Party, to the point of closing down the government. Others think that would be a disaster. This is a matter of strategy. It is also a matter of frustration that grass roots conservatives, who have had some successes, but who also see little results in Washington. My point is that while conservatives may differ over strategy, conservatives ought not to write each other out of the conservative approach to the government over such matters.
