Taking a Stand: Considering "Letter From Birmingham Jail"

I invite you to reflect with me upon two “open letters” that I think are instructive in the way they show how Christian people can differ in discerning the nature of the times and therefore deciding upon a Christian course.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his "Letter From Birmingham Jail" in April 1963. It became an important document in the history of the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s, and remains a persuasive discussion of the duty of every citizen to resist unjust laws, for an "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

What were you doing in April 1963?

If you are a senior citizen, you might have watched the debut of the long-running soap opera General Hospital.

This picture is, as you can see, from January 1963. The family is playing Monopoly. That would be me in the dark rimmed glasses.

If you are a baby boomer, you might have purchased the first album put out by the Beatles, Please Please Me. That would have been me. I liked the Beatles enough that it created a battle with dad over the length of my hair. He wanted a burr cut, and I wanted it long. He ridiculed the Beatles because, “All they say is Yeah, Yeah, Yeah,” a reference to the song “She Loves You,” which was the only song that included that refrain. We lived in Mapleview, MN, a little village north of Austin, MN. Dad started drinking a lot. Mom started taking us five children to Crane Addition Community Chapel, where I would give my life to Jesus sometime that year. The Twins and Vikings were everything to me. I turned my four sisters into “tom boys” by playing ball with them. I was concluding my sixth grade. Warren Howell, a man of whom I have no memory, was my teacher. I received a satisfactory grade in all subjects that year. I was only a year away from first unsatisfactory grades in art and music. Such were the issues of this eleven-year-old, going on twelve as I quickly would have added.

Of course, if you are a member of Generations X, Y or Z, you were not even born yet.

Why get into such personal matters? I realized how different my life was from a whole group of Americans of whom I had little knowledge.

If you were a leader of the clergy in Alabama, you would have received a strongly worded letter from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. On April 16, 1963, King issued his Letter from Birmingham Jail. By the way, in August of the same year, he would deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. In November of that year, Oswald would kill President John F. Kennedy.

Authorities locked up the civil rights (he called it the freedom movement in the letter) leader in the city jail after arresting him for his part in the Birmingham campaign, a nonviolent protest conducted by the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. King was president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The Alabama Christian Movement invited him to take part in the protest.

King wrote his letter on the margins of a newspaper, which was the only paper he could find. His lawyers carried bits and pieces of the letter back to the headquarters of the movement.

So why did King write the letter?

Eight white Alabama clergymen -- four bishops, three pastors and one rabbi -- had written a statement known as “A Call for Unity.” It said that while they understood the “natural impatience, King's efforts of direct action on the streets was "unwise and untimely." They agreed that racial segregation was a problem, but that religious leaders should pursue change through negotiation and judicial action. They thought that although Dr. King espoused nonviolence, his direct action had incited violence, which has no sanction within the religious tradition. These religious leaders rebuked King for being an outsider causing trouble in Birmingham.  

We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement in particular, on the calm manner in which these demonstrations have been handled. 

Of course, King, who had personal experience with the police department, disagreed with their assessment. They concluded with a message of hope: “We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.” One can see that what the Alabama clergy saw was quite different from what Dr. King saw. They saw that the defeat of “Bull” Connor meant the possibility of a new day for the city. Dr. King saw that the problem was not just one man, no matter how much of a symbol of racism he had become. Of course, calling Dr. King’s non-violent demonstrations “extreme measures” does seem odd, in light of the Black Nationalist movements.

Among the bishops were two Methodist bishops. One was Paul Hardin, Jr., who would later become President of the Council of Bishops. Another was Nolan Bailey Harmon, who lived to be 100 years old. I was pleased to see that King referred to them as “men of genuine good will” and that they sent forth their criticism “sincerely.” Yet, he also suggests that such “white moderates,” who agree with the goals but not the methods, may be the greatest hindrance to advances by the Black people.

I vaguely recall around this time seeing a report of Dr. King on the television and my dad reacting in a violent and negative way. To him, Dr. King brought violence everywhere he went. As for me, I more clearly recall receiving inspiration from him. I do not recall the letter, but I do recall his famous speech a few months later in Washington, DC. I never quite understood treating someone different simply due to the color of his or her skin, and at my present age, I do not think I want to try.

King responded to the open letter with his own admittedly long letter. He said he was not an outsider because he had ties to the Alabama Christian Movement. More importantly, "I am in Birmingham because injustice is here." He refers to the interrelatedness of all human communities. As he beautifully put it, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

Alabama clergy leaders were upset because demonstrations were happening in Birmingham. King acknowledged that the demonstrations were unfortunate, but said, "it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative."

The church leaders also questioned the timing of the protests. They wanted King to wait and see if a new city administration would improve conditions for blacks. King responded that those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation could easily tell others to wait. He offers a long list of the abuses of segregation. He refers to lynching, hate-filled officers of the law, violence, poverty, blocking entrance to public places, inferiority, hatred within black children for white people, and called disrespectfully “nigger” and “boy.” The “cup of endurance” has reached its limit. For blacks in the United States, the word "wait" had meant "never." They had already been waiting 340 years for their "constitutional and God-given rights."

That is too long to wait. King was sick and tired of waiting for human authorities to act.

It was time to obey God.

If you think you must disobey an immoral law, King says to do so openly and lovingly.

Not that King was the first to practice civil disobedience. He spoke of the Old Testament's Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refusing to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar ..., Socrates practicing civil disobedience in ancient Greece ..., American patriots participating in the Boston Tea Party ..., and, of course, early Christians facing persecution for their faith.

Like Martin Luther King Jr., they knew that they must obey God rather than human authority. In fact, as King says later in the letter, the church was powerful in its witness when it suffered for the right cause.

However, how did he know that he was hearing the voice of God? After all, the clergy of Birmingham believed that they were obeying God. They had the authority of religious institutions on their side.

King addresses this question head-on. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," he says that there are two types of laws: just and unjust.  

"I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"  

Of course, the obvious question is how we are to know the difference. That is the tough part.  

"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. A just law is any law that uplifts human personality." An unjust law is: "Any law that degrades human personality." [Based on this reasoning, he concludes that] "all segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority." 

King refers to the deep connection between America and the African-American. 

We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America. 

He contrasts himself with various Black Nationalist movements that have lost faith in America. He urges the more excellent way of love and non-violent protest. He wants to channel the normal and healthy disturbance that oppression brings into nonviolent action.

King quotes the theologian Paul Tillich in saying that sin is separation, and then makes the point that segregation is an  

"expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness." [If segregation is sin, then King can justifiably urge his followers to] "disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong."  

In other words, one can legitimately disobey segregation ordinances because they alienate people from each other, when morality will bring people together in mutual regard and respect.

King expresses his disappointment in the church, represented by “A Call for Unity” letter, especially since he has led a nonviolent form of direct action.

All of this leads me to reflect upon where we draw the line between just and moral laws in contrast to moral and immoral laws. I am sure those in the legal profession would have much to say about such notions. Depending upon where we draw the line, we will come to differing conclusions as to when and where to practice civil disobedience.

Most of us would agree that Dr. King had the superior argument to that of the other religious leaders. In the post-war era, it was simply time for the racial alienation that segregation represented to end. To wait actually meant it would never end. Such is the gift of “discernment” so long after the event.

Yet, can we see the dilemma that these two Christian groups faced? Can we see that they at least try to treat each respectfully, even if they deeply disagree?

Sadly, today, I do not find much effort at mutual regard and respect. To take direct action today is not to do so “openly and lovingly.” Often, such action is covert, accusatory, and even violent.

I do not come to the positions I hold easily. I have never been much for politics in the pulpit. In so many issues, I feel the need to study thoroughly, and that takes some time. After my study, I may well come to some personal conclusions. Yet, I can always understand that someone might legitimately take a differing opinion.

I have counseled people considering abortion to value life instead. As I think of one family, that baby is now a valued member of an extended family. Does that mean I would always do so? Could I imagine circumstances where I might offer a different counsel?

The definition of marriage for society has always been between a man and a woman. Apart from biblical arguments, it has been a good guide for healthy expression of our sexual desire, need for intimate friendship, encouraging responsibility and work, and passing on basic values to the next generation. Society is now going through a change. How can society stand in the way of any two people who want a marriage license? We do not know what the outcome of such change will be. Will we witness the breakdown of the family? Will we see the growth of personal hurt and pain because we no longer have a guide to healthy sexual expression? What happens if society allows the sexualization of every relationship?

We have long had limits on immigration from other countries. The reason was that it takes time for people to assimilate into the American idea of political and economic freedom. Do these rules need re-consideration? What do we do with people who come without going through legal channels?

The rise of Islamic militancy presents a challenge, of course, due to its religious ties, but we must also defend our neighbors from those who want to do harm. The religious genocide against Christians in the Middle East deserves opposition from all forms of government.

I know I need more education on the ending of child sex slavery and human trafficking. I have puzzled as to why it took a Civil War to end slavery in America, but the fact that it continues may suggest that slavery is a far deeper issue than I presently think.

We are in a presidential election year. People feel deeply about their candidate. Does it make me a non-Christian or racist if I do not support your candidate? Does it make me a hater of America if I do not support your candidate?

The point is, can we frame the discussion in such a way that it actually makes us think about whether we advance human alienation or enhance our common humanity in our creation and destiny. While God created us in the image of God, due to our separation from God, each other, and nature (see Genesis 3-4), we are now on the way to our destiny, to be conformed into the image of Jesus Christ. Note that our commonality in creation and destiny does not obliterate our individuality. Rather, this commonality leads us toward the actualization of love to God and to others, to the actualization of faith, hope, and love.

Regardless of the stand you take, the solution will not be quick or easy. I hope we can always engage in such discussions with mutual regard and respect. As Dr. King put it, we are to discuss matters openly (and therefore courageously) and lovingly (and therefore with understanding of those with whom we disagree).

Does this mean that two people, standing on opposite sides of an issue, could legitimately say, “I must obey God rather than human authority?”

 

 

 

Search for Life in the Univese

nasa.gov/ames/kepler/nasas-kepler-discovers-first-earth-size-planet-in-the-habitable-zone-of-another-star.

The above is an interesting and brief discussion with some scientists about the search for life somewhere in the universe.

My fascination with the results of its explorations has remained with me. Yes, the first efforts of launching into space in the 1960s and 1970s had me glued to the television. Whether a space walk or a moon walk, such scientific accomplishments made my imagination soar.

Of course, along with that is science fiction. Traveling through the galaxy or even to different galaxies always gets my imagination going. Yes, I like Star Trek and Star Wars.

I imagine that as long as humans have been looking at the stars, they have wondered if there is life on distant planets. In our imagination, we picture distant worlds where aliens exist -- aliens either who look very much like us, or who look very much unlike us. We might one day get to know such creatures, or, if a lot of science fiction is correct, we may run screaming away from them.

NASA, of course, is always on the case. With new technology like the Kepler Space Telescope, astronomers have been looking deeper into space for more signs of potentially habitable, perhaps life-sustaining, planets that look more like our own. Among the disappointing results is that life is scarce in this universe. Yes, we can detect beautiful patterns and huge distances. We discover amazing things. Yet, most of the universe is either nuclear type objects like the sun or cold, hard rock.

Thus, imagine my fascination when NASA recently, they found one such cousin to Earth approximately 500 light years away. Given that light travels 5.88 trillion miles in one year, well, you do the math. It is a long way!

NASA has named the planet Kepler-186f, and its discovery "is a significant step toward finding worlds like our planet Earth," says Paul Hertz, director of the space agency's Astrophysics Division. Kepler 186-f is in what scientists call the "habitable zone" in relation to its closest star, or about the right distance to sustain life as we know it without frying or freezing it. Kepler 186-f orbits its star every 130 days and receives one-third the energy that we get from our sun, meaning that the sun at high noon there is only about as bright as it is here about an hour before sunset.

In other words, you could probably leave the sunscreen behind.

Like with most of these discoveries, however, the scientists do not yet know if Kepler 186-f harbors any life, or if it could sustain life as we know it, since they have not learned much about its atmosphere. Although the planet is about the size of Earth, we do not know much about its mass and composition either. Previous research leads experts to believe that the surface is rocky, just like every other planetary body we know about except Earth, whose surface area is 71 percent water -- the basic building block of life. The chances for life to grow on places like Kepler 186-f are very slim, but we keep looking for life among the dead stones and craters of those distant worlds.

Our fascination with finding life elsewhere in the universe could lead to some interesting reflections on an Easter Sunday somewhere.

Giants We Face

All of us have giants to face.

Maybe you are a 69-year-old retiree with chronic health problems. Maybe you are a 52-year-old man whom your employer as laid off and you have trouble getting interviews. Maybe you are a 45-year old woman, struggling with guilt about choices she made as a young adult. Maybe you are a 33-year-old immigrant with a minimum-wage job and a family many thousands of miles away. Maybe you are a 25-year-old with the beginnings of a drinking problem. Maybe you are a teenager feeling the out-of-control expectations of his parents.

I invite you to think about illness, unemployment, guilt, separation, substance abuse, and the expectations of others. If you face them, every one of them is a giant.

So let us talk about giants.

I invite you to think about an interesting take on the well-known fable in a movie released on March 1, 2013: Jack the Giant Slayer.

You know the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.[1]

Jack is a boy who lives with his widowed mother, with nothing to support them but a cow. When the cow stops giving milk, mom sends Jack to the market to sell it. On the way, he meets a man who offers him a handful of magic beans in exchange for the cow. This proves to be a big mistake. When he arrives home without money, his mother is furious. She throws the beans out the window and sends Jack to bed without supper. Then, while they are sleeping, the beans grow into an enormous beanstalk, reaching up to a land high in the sky. Jack climbs the beanstalk and discovers the castle of a giant. He breaks into the castle. Soon, the giant returns home. He senses that Jack is nearby, and speaks a rhyme: 

Fee-fi-fo-fum!

I smell the blood of an Englishman,

[We find these lines in King Lear (Act 3, Scene 4) as well]

Be he alive, or be he dead,

I'll grind his bones to make my bread. 

The giant falls asleep, so he steals a bag of gold coins this time, a goose that lays a golden egg, and a harp that plays by itself. Eventually, the giant chases Jack down the beanstalk. The boy makes it down first, asks his mother for an axe, and chops down the beanstalk -- killing the giant. Jack and his mother live happily ever after with the riches that Jack stole.

Jack becomes the Giant Slayer!

This type of story is more about the cunning needed by the small and insignificant in a world full of “giants,” whether they are economic or political giants. You know the stories, such as stealing treasure from the big dragon or some other monster. We miss the point if we turn it into a morality tale. In fact, the only way to do so is to make the giant bad so that he deserves what he gets. Still, granting that he showed resourcefulness and cunning, do we really want to lift up this boy as a role model? He shows terrible judgment in exchanging a cow for magic beans, and then steals from a giant before he kills him. We can certainly sympathize with Jack as he runs for his life from the angry giant, but we have to admit that he brought much of his trouble on himself.

Jack is not innocent. He is a sinner.

Just like us.

Yet, we desperately want to see Jack as a hero. It at least appears that is why someone re-wrote the fable for the movie Jack the Giant Slayer. The story becomes a major morality tale. In this new take on the fairy tale, Jack is a young farmhand who unwittingly opens a gateway between Earth and a land of fearsome giants. Led by their two-headed leader, the giants are determined to gain control of Earth, and they kidnap a princess as part of their invasion. Jack leads an expedition to rescue the princess, entering an epic battle that will shape the destiny of people everywhere.

Suddenly, the impossible has become possible. Jack has become a hero -- not a cunning kid who slyly defeated his giant, or even a kid with poor judgment and a touch of kleptomania. We all want a champion who makes the impossible, possible; to make the improbable, probable; who slays our giants, and make us feel good about ourselves because we just might be able to emulate them.

I guess I could be more direct at this point. The suffering and evil we find in this world are giants. It sure would be nice to have a giant slayer.

Do we want God to fill that role?

Do we want Jesus to fill that role?

---

[1] This version is from an annotated version of the story told by Joseph Jacobs and you can find a simpler version here.

Inspiration in Perseverence and Achieving Goals: Major Phil Packer

            A special attraction for me is the racing metaphor. I think the reason here is one sport in which I can participate relatively easily. I am not much for watching sports, but I like to be engaged. I do not think I have ever been in a real race. I like to run the Indianapolis mini-marathon, of course, but I do not compete with anyone except me. I would like to do better than I did the previous year. Some years, I just wanted to complete it, and I always have. One year, it took me the longest time to complete it. I developed a cramp in my leg, but I kept going. When it came to that last mile, I was determined to take it up a notch. It did not work. I walked across the finish line. I am rather stubborn that way.

I want to look into the race metaphor for a few moments.

 

           In February 2008, a rocket blast struck Maj. Phil Packer while serving with the British Armed Forces in Basra, Iraq. He suffered major heart and spinal injuries — enough that medics told the now-paraplegic soldier that he would never walk again. They were wrong — wrong by a whopping 26.2 miles. A year later, Maj. Packer completed the Flora London Marathon — on crutches — only one month after a year’s rehab allowed him to take his first step with them. Starting the marathon with the main race group, he finished it 13 days later. He covered roughly two miles a day, and the whole journey took him 52,400 steps. When doctors tell you that you will never walk again, every step is worth counting. Moreover, when each race day consists of 4,000 painful steps, you probably count each limp and remember every one of them.

            For Packer, limping in was actually all in. If limping or walking is the best you can do, and you complete it, you are “all in.”

            He has identified his mission in life: "To deliver inspiration, create greater inclusion and to influence in the areas of self-harm, depression and mental health at the highest level in order to improve the vital support for young people experiencing trauma in their lives." Have you ever thought your mission in life? You can visit his web site here.

            His extraordinary efforts were more than just an amazing story of human will and overcoming the odds. His marathon was a fundraising movement to donate more than £1million (about $1.5 million) to Help for Heroes — a charity that rebuilds the torn-up lives of people injured in military service. As Packer successfully limped toward his funding goal, scores of tear-drenched supporters joined him each day along the road. Families of lost soldiers. Entire schools of inspired children. Cops. Firefighters. Politicians. Onlookers seemed caught up in the seemingly transcendent journey.

            Before his wheelchair-bound legs would work, he recognized the one-year anniversary of his war injury by rowing across the English Channel.

           

After the marathon, Packer took on Yosemite’s infamous El Capitan — one of America’s hardest mountains to scale. He accomplished a four-day summit almost entirely by upper-body strength developed through his training regimen of 4,000 pull-ups.

            Maimed by a rocket blast. A year later rowing the Channel. Two months later taking his first step. One month later, he limps a marathon. One month later scaling El Capitan. By the way, Phil set out on 14th September 2015 to complete a marathon distance through the City of London in an incredible 14 hours. He has not stopped!

            We could call that 17-month run inhuman. It is actually superhuman.

            Packer’s journey from past to future was a physical striving.

            What inspires me about Packer is that when he could have given up, he refused to do so. He decided to live his life to its fullest. I have had to ask myself if I am living my life to its fullest. Do I have goals that are clearly before me? Am I willing to persevere through the difficult times in order to achieve the goal? Am I willing to view the present struggle as just one part of the race toward the goal? In other words, we are all in process, straining forward toward something new.

            Are we “all in” with God, or are we going to “limp in”?

Republican Presidential Debate 2016 March in Detroit

The purpose of this blog is to allow the potential reader to ponder the field of Republican candidates. If you want to skip to particular candidates, just scroll down.

Mona Charen has written of the unrealistic expectations that good people are placing upon government. It will have devastating effects on the country because the voters want their politicians to lie to them about what government can do. Charles Krauthammer has written of the foreign policies of the four major contenders.

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. The consistent attempt to make illegitimate any opposition to the Progressive-Liberal-Democrat agenda is part of the reality of political discourse today. In the Republican Party, the issue is ideas. If you have good ideas, you will find support, regardless of race, gender, or religious persuasion.

The turnout in the Republican Party primaries and caucuses has broken records. Some people appear to attribute this phenomenon to Trump with the implication that he is growing the party. I have my doubts. I think some Democrats are frustrated with Hillary and Bernie, and are open to the liberal like Donald. I also suspect that some Democrats vote in the Republican primaries for darker reasons. However, I also think that many Republicans are turning out to say "Anybody But Trump."

Speaking of the Republican Party, I have a few thoughts to share. James Hohmann has an interesting discussion regarding the rift over social issues, which in this case means gay marriage and bathrooms. Personally, I find it disgusting that anyone would disagree that a person must use the bathroom of their birth certificate identification. The danger to girls and women is particularly strong here. Mona Charen defends the establishment against Trump in a powerful way. Although she does not mention Rush and Hannity, she addresses herself to their diatribe against the Washington elected officials. 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 hope you will bear with me. In a more recent article, he summarized his point by saying that "America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons that occupies the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, and of large corporations, and that wields political power through the Democratic Party. Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the Republican Party’s elites into its satellites. Ordinary Americans have endured being insulted by the ruling class’s favorite epitaphs—racist, sexist, etc., and, above all, stupid; they have had careers and reputations compromised by speaking the wrong word in front of the wrong person; endured dictates from the highest courts in the land that no means yes (King), that public means private (Kelo), that everyone is entitled to make up one’s meaning of life (Casey), but that whoever thinks marriage is exclusively between men and women is a bigot (Obergefell). No wonder, then, that millions of Americans lose respect for a ruling class that disrespects them, that they identify with whomever promises some kind of turnabout against that class, and that they care less and less for the integrity of institutions that fail to protect them." Of course, all of this leads into the reason why the "Country Class" feels identification with Trump. the Ruling Class's fatal feature is its belief that ordinary Americans are a lesser intellectual and social breed. Its increasing self-absorption, its growing contempt for whoever won’t bow to it, its dependence for votes on sectors of society whose grievances it stokes, have led it to break the most basic rule of republican life: deeming its opposition illegitimate. The ruling class insists on driving down the throats of its opponents the agendas of each its constituencies and on injuring persons who stand in the way. This has spawned a Newtonian reaction, a hunger, among what may be called the “country class” for returning the favor with interest.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."

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.

March 1 primary verifies my concern. The Republican Party will end up with a nominee who will not break 40% of the vote. With any luck, there will be a brokered convention that will lead to the defeat of Trump.

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. When you de-legitimize your opponent by saying they are racist, mysoginist, party of no, and so on, it makes it difficult to engage in practices that will contribute to actual governance.

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.

The picture below still has Carson in the debate, but he has recently backed out.

Marco Rubio
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 voters who are for Trump, but hopefully it will keep his numbers in that range. So far, that has proved to be the case. Trump has not made it over the 40% mark. 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 think Marco is at his best when laying out the conservative vision. In any case, I admit my disappointment with the continuing insults toward Trump.

It would appear that Marco would need to win Florida. As a winner take all primary, it would bring his delegate total up substantially. That will be difficult, apparently.

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.

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. She later wrote that he was the best path to beat Trump and witn the general election. 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.

Ted Cruz
He has a news portion on his web site.

Ted Cruz had a strategy in which he viewed himself as energizing the evangelicals who stayed home to bring forth a majority in the general election. When Trump entered the race, his strategy did not change. He obviously did not think Trump would have an appeal among them, but a plurality have gone for him. I would point out that 30% of self-identified evangelicals voted for Obama. In any case, the political landscape changed, but the Cruz strategy did not. He needed to broaden his appeal and stop sounding like a revival preacher.

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.

Early in the primary process, Cruz adopted a hands off approach to Trump and attacked Rubio, even though in terms of conservativism, they are in the same ballpark. 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. My point is that it showed lack of judgment and personalizing of the campaign instead of keeping the larger picture in mind of keeping this Party a conservative party. Ed Rogers thinks he deserves conservative support, even with some of his admitted personal flaws.

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
I want to share a suspicion. Most Democrats have known that Hillary would be their nominee. Many of the primaries are "open," meaning that anyone can vote. I think many Democrats have organically decided (not a conspiracy) to vote in the Republican Party primary in order to do their version of "Operation Chaos" by pumping up Trump numbers. I have anecdotal evidence in Minnesota, in which some who caucused with Republicans clearly were Democrat and every intention of staying Democrat in the general election. I have no idea how many persons this would be, of course, but I think it enough to throw the election in the direction of Trump.

In March 2016, one conservative commentator I respect said the following about Trump:
KRAUTHAMMER:  He's demonstrated the ability to bring out people who aren't regular voters, aren't regular Republicans. And he could alter the map.  I think Democrats who thought six months ago that he was a joke -- I thought he was a joke as a nominee for the Republican Party, and a lot of people thought as well, and we were all wrong.  So he has the capacity to appeal.  Democrats are beginning to think that this is not a slam dunk and this guy, he doesn't play by the rules; he makes 'em up. And under a new set of rules, she could lose to him.

Rich Lowry has written what I have been thinking and written in my blog, that Trump represents the destruction of the Republican Party. He is running against the Party from within the Party. Thomas Sowell writes of the importance of the time and the danger of Trump.

David Brady and Douglas Rivers explains the Trump phenomenon in a growing distrust of government in that many think special interests control government. Jim Tankersley explains it with the commitment of the Republican Party to free trade and the lack of results. For those not too acquainted with the Republican Party, Philip Rucker and Dan Balz explain the many policies he has that are contrary to the tradition of the party. Jonah Goldberg says that whether Trump is or is not the nominee, the GOP is over as it was.

Donald Lambro has written a sensible article. I interpret this way. The Establishment (term used positively here) had a plan for increasing Republican presence in the House and Senate and put a Republican in the Presidency. Trump has destroyed that plan and it will lead to devastating losses by Republicans throughout the country. Rich Lowry writes about how Trump has destroyed the type of conservativism represented by Jack Kemp and Marco Rubio. He also points to the Trump opposition to the Bush family. On this, I agree that the party needs to distance itself from the Bush family, but the way Trump has done this will be devastating to the Party.

Darren Patrick Guerra has written about the myth of evangelical support for Trump. Robert P. George and George Weigel argue from a Roman Catholic perspective that Trump disqualifies himself.

Rush Limbaugh has worked hard at not supporting anyone in this campaign. He clearly has thought Ted Cruz was the most conservative option. He also thinks such philosophical matters are not part of this election. However, every chance he has gotten, he defends Trump. Here is the problem. Several public figures who are clearly conservative will put a positive spin Trump. These persons generally have not perceived the danger of Trump to conservativism. They have not had the insight the Establishment has had in seeing Trump as a danger to the Republican Party. The reason, I think, is that some conservatives have grown to hate the Establishment so much they have grown blind to a danger from another quarter. I finally saw this type of analysis in print with Michael Gerson, which makes me think I might be at least headed in the right direction.

It is hard to keep up with the incidents that surround Trump. In March 2016, we have the physical exchange between a campaign leader and reporter Michelle Fields. Mona Charen offers a reasonable analysis, referring to the "morality-free" zone that Trump inspires.

Philip Bump argues that while many voters are energized toward Republican primaries, the reason is to vote against Trump. Jim Geraghty makes it clear that Trump cannot win the general election, because as high as the negatives of Hillary are with the general population, Trump's are even higher.

Brett Arends writes of the downside of the Trump business record, where he makes money while stockholders do not.

I hear some people saying that Trump represents what "the people" want. I would remind any potential reader that "the people" are about one-third of the voters thus far. In reality, "the people" want someone other than Trump. If it was one on one, Trump, I am convinced, would be losing in the same way that Bernie Sanders is losing.

I do not find the comparisons with Mussolini or fascists very helpful. I have found a few analyses of the support for Trump that I have found insightful.

Daniel W. Dresner writes about the trouble with Trump is that he is as simple as he sounds, and is therefore is "a narcissistic, ignorant, misogynistic gasbag." Those who follow Trump also simple, so you can add racist to the analysis. I do not usually refer to such articles, but this one had an interesting twist, whether one agrees or does not.

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. His concern is that following up one emperor with another emperor may mean the end of a republican (note small r) form of government. 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. He states clearly that the direction we are heading means the front-runners in both political parties are not merely inadequate but appalling.  Mona Charen puts him together with Bernie Sanders as a demagogue. She also gave tips to Trump opponents for certain areas of attack. Mark Tooley writes of why he will vote for Hillary rather than Trump after 33 years of voting Republican. Of course, I cannot do that one. I would rather leave that box unchecked. 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. He expanded the objection again with reference to some of his friends, such as Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett, and especially the inappropriate connection with Ronald Reagan.

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. Trump and Cruz went through a phase in which they went 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.

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.  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. 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.

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. I will be so embarrassed that I will tell no one for whom I vote.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin have run their version of "operation chaos" against what they view as the establishment of the Republican Party. What they forget is that constituents have voted for them. These are people who believe in limited forms of government involvement in our lives, and therefore less taxes and regulation. In any case, I think for these media personalities, Trump was a vehicle for lashing out at what they believe has been weak opposition to the Obama agenda. Hannity regularly says Republicans mistrust their leadership. He does not often point out that the opposite is true with the Democrat leadership, where the rank and file Democrat marches in lockstep with the leadership. I figured that eventually, the Democrat part of Trump would come out in a way that these media persons would have to respond negatively. What has amazed me is that their hatred of "establishment" has meant speaking positively about a liberal to moderate politician like Trump. In the process, they may well kill the Republican Party as a conservative party. My frustration is that 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 conservative does not yet 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. 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. Charles Krauthammer has expressed well the problem with banning all Muslims from entering the USA. 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." 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.

Jeff Jacoby shares why Trump will not be the nominee, a thought many had early in the campaign. He begins 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. Robert J. Samuelson says "Trumpanomics" does not add up.

Here are some analyses.    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.