This has been a difficult election cycle for me. I have never been so disappointed in both political parties. I have tuned out of the "hot medium" of television and radio for several months, and this has led to a much happier few months. I have kept up with the political process through the "cool medium" of articles, reading articles that I think have tried to offer some perspective on the nature of this election cycle.
I am quite disappointed in the political class of both political parties. I believe the country faces some important challenges. In reading some presidential biographies, I think one could make a strong case that the political class failed the country during the Jackson Era, largely because of the dominance of Jackson and his circle. Its failure led to the Civil War. The political class can fail is my point, and the result can be disaster.
Nothing I write here has the design of offending those who are enthusiastic for either Hillary or Donald. For the reasons offered below, I cannot join you in your enthusiasm. To state the obvious, those who do not like Trump do no favors to the "stop Trump" movement when they engage in violent behavior. Personally, I think the language of his opponents contributes to this. Calling him racist, misogynist, and fascist stokes the fires of violence, even if such charges may have an element of truth in them. When opponents are willing to pay persons to engage in such rioting at Trump events, it solidifies those who are for Trump that they are on the right track. For the reasons offered below, as much as I dislike Donald, I dislike Hillary just as much.
We have two candidates who have high negatives. Apparently, if you have high negatives, the political strategy is to focus on the negatives of your opponent. The strategy is that as bad as people may think you are, the other candidate is worse, so you are willing to cast a vote on that basis. We can expect, therefore, a lot of negative campaigning over the next few months. American primary goers and superdelegates have opted for the two candidates with the highest negatives.
I am going to have four sections to this blog. The first will share some of my general philosophical commitments regarding governance. For me, it is important, in the heat of a campaign, to think and pray through your basic political commitments. The second will focus on Hillary. The third will focus on Donald. The fourth offers an interesting reflection on the political landscape.
First, I offer some political Perspectives
I am a political conservative in the mold of George Will, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan. As such, I was not impressed by either of the Bush presidencies. In fact, if Party leaders listen, they will hear much frustration with the direction the Bush family has taken the GOP. Do not get me wrong. I have no doubt that they are good and honorable people. In this, I disagree with the Left assessment. Yet, I was among those hesitant about both Afghanistan and Iraq. My reasoning was that I did not think it wise for a Western-style democracy to engage deeply in the Middle East. I do not think Islam there is compatible with democracy. My hope is that The Donald has at least brought some humility to the neo-conservative mentality that America should use its military to spread democratic institutions. I also hope that people who used to be movement conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh will re-think their position on Trump. More than that, their constant attacks on the Establishment, represented by Paul Ryan and the Senate leadership, needs some re-thinking. The Establishment has brought, under the Obama Presidency, majorities in the House and Senate, Governorships, and state legislatures.
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. At the same time, the Establishment needs to listen again to the TEA Party and learn what it can from them. If The Donald wins, I predict the GOP brand will experience long-term damage with many persons and groups in the USA. I have been a free-trade person, which is typical of conservatives. Such internationalism on trade is out of favor with many persons, and I may need to do some re-thinking here. I have never been an "open borders" person. I think strong national boundaries are important. At the same time, I keep puzzling as to why something "reasonable" cannot find acceptance among the GOP and Democrats when it comes to dealing humanely with persons here illegally. This campaign has brought a division in both parties between party leaders (derisively called elites) and the people (represented by Trump and Sanders). I hope party leaders will spend some time listening to their people.
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.
Jonah Goldberg says that in 1934 the American Liberty League formed from people who did not like the big government policies of Herbert Hoover on the Republican side or Franklin Roosevelt on the Democrat side. Although not successful, it led to the birth of other conservative organizations. I do not know much about the league, but the idea is interesting. “There is one very clear lesson to be learned from history — namely, that governmental disregard for property rights soon leads to disregard for other rights,” one of its pamphlets declared. “A bureaucracy or despotism that robs citizens of their property does not like to be haunted by its victims.” As with Progressives today, their opponents did not value the founders or Constitution.
“If anybody’s in favor of saving the Constitution, it’s a sure sign he’s got at least a million dollars.”
In a sense, 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.
Thomas Sowell outlines the dilemma we face in this election. No one said citizenship would be easy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jonah Goldberg says his brand of conservativism is not dead. He does so in dialogue with Peggy Noonan, who thinks that the Bush emphasis on internationalism in trade and relatively open borders and military involvement is giving way to a new burst of patriotism. I think Peggy is closer to right. Conservatives like Jonah need to do some re-evaluating of what the Bush family has meant to the Republican agenda and the ultimate separation that has occurred between many Republican leaders and the people who vote in primaries.
I will not offer reasons to vote for either of the two major candidates for President this year. In the past, I have compared the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church with the positions of the candidates. I do not have the interest this year. This election cycle does not deserve respectful analysis. Thus, I will offer reasons why you should not vote for either one. If you want reasons to vote for, you can go to their web sites. I cannot think of good reasons to vote for either candidate. I can see where one might vote against one or the other. From a conservative perspective, one could make a strong case that The Donald losing would be a victory. I am not sure if the typical liberal would agree, but maybe the faithful Progressive or the faithful Democrat would agree that the time has come for the Party to put the Clintons behind them and stretch forward to something new. This would mean that a defeat for Hillary might be victory. Sometimes, being the party of opposition offers the party an opportunity to identify itself more clearly to itself, which an then lead to presenting the alternatives clearly in the next election.
One of the issues is Progressive agendas and politics.
R. Emmett Tyrell Jr has written about the death of liberalism, making the claim that the old liberalism of the 1960s is dead, replaced by a progressive approach that is quite different from the past.
Michael Barone offers an interesting analysis of the death of the center-left dimension of the Democrat Party. He uses an analogy with England.
Jeff Greenfield offers an analysis of the effect of Obama on the Democrat Party nationally. It is not good.
Dana Bilbank refers to the death of the blue dog Democrat as revealed in the House in November 2015.
Thomas Sowell offers his account of how the Left is fact free, using some recent issues. In another
article with the same theme, he focuses on the help the Left wants to give to those who need it, and the harm they end up doing.
Larry Elder also provides statistics that suggest that African-Americans are worse off since Obama became president.
The Democrat Party is raising the issue of socialism. This fact concerns me. The fact that an old socialist named Bernie could give Hillary such a run for her money is an indication of the weakness of her candidacy. I would like to offer a reminder of why socialism is not a good thing. One can only hope that the Democrat Party will back away from this idea and restore the best of its liberal tradition. Here is a brief discussion of socialism between
Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue. Less than 4 minutes.
Walter Williams has 5 minutes on the morality of capitalism that you will find interesting. I find it disheartening that America is changing to the point where a socialist can garner half the votes in IA and likely win New Hampshire. Voters need to do some serious reading about the disaster socialism would bring to this country.
Patrick Barron explains why European socialism is failing.
Stephen Moore explains the failure of European socialism through economist Milton Friedman.
John Hawkins offers 5 ways socialism destroys societies. Alternatively, the best approach to understand capitalism better, which Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Milton Friedman (
Capitalism and Freedom,
Free to Choose) are the best ways to do this. If you want an extensive analysis, George Gilder,
Wealth & Poverty is the best approach I have seen in laying out the moral foundation for capitalism.
Thomas Sowell has written of the lure of socialism.
He also discusses that socialism sounds good, but then, reality sets in, as it has in Venezuela.
Walter Williams writes of the hidden and negative history of progressivism.
Michael Tanner has a nice article on whether socialism is making a comeback. Harry Jaffa has written about the change occurring in liberalism/progressivism/socialism, and here is a brief summary by
Steven Hayward. On the lighter side,
Emily Ekins writes that millennials are attracted socialism - until they get jobs.
The Progressive and the Socialist, by definition, wants more involvement of government in the area of what we call "civil society," the arena where citizens live in neighborhoods, engage in economic exchanges, freely join associations, and join religious organizations. At a philosophical level, which I know this election does not favor, government is best when it is small. No government is "good," simply because human beings run it. All government has a shadow side. As Jesus put it, only one is "good," and that would be God. The larger the government your ideology demands, the more potential for the shadow side to emerge. In America, this means paying attention to the roles of federal, state, and local governments, and even more to the role of the liberty of its citizens in "civil society" (businesses, families, and its voluntary associations such as churches, synagogues, and mosques.) I moved from liberalism with my last liberal vote, Jimmy Carter, due to the influence of William Buckley, George Will, and Milton Friedman. This election will not be about any of that.
In any case, I will vote, of course. The issues that concern me are simple. I still want a reduction in the role of the federal government in our personal lives and wealth, but that is unlikely to happen in this election, regardless of who wins. I would like to see the nation start paying off the national debt rather than adding to it, but that will not happen, no matter who wins. On the Supreme Court, I want more people like Justice Scalia. The constitution limits the power of the federal government. Hopefully, we can start the journey toward recognizing those limits. In national defense, the Middle East and the war against Islamic Militancy as approached by Obama has been a disaster. I want something different, even if I find it difficult to state precisely what. In matters of violence within America, I support the police and others on the front lines of protecting citizens. Presidents, governors, and mayors need to be behind those who protect citizens from violence. I would note in this regard that the violence done against black people occurs in cities run by the Democrat Party and often run by Democrat police chiefs. God created all persons in the image of God. Christ died for all. In Christ, there is no white, black, brown, or any other color. An important theological issue is involved. An important matter strategy is involved. If you want change, you take the path of love and respect rather than hate. You take the path of non-violence.
We still have a secret ballot. I may not even tell my wife what I do with my vote. My vote this year will be one I cast with embarrassment, no matter what I do.
Most people prefer to hit the surface of issues. I would invite you to take some time. I have continued the process of linking to articles that I hope will be helpful in the decision-making process for any who might read this blog. I will update. This is mostly for your information. However, for me, it will be a matter of meditation and prayer as well. You see, I am grateful for having the good fortune of being an American. Jesus suggested that we "render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar," but this election is difficult for this citizen.
Second, reasons to vote Against Hillary
If you have read this far, you know that I will disagree with Hillary on policy matters. I know, she is United Methodist. Still, I cannot travel with her on her political journey at all. Here are some reasons to vote against Hillary.
1. Hillary scares people, for which read
Mona Charen for a brief reminder of what she has done to cause this reaction.
Wesley Pruden
2. She defended Bill's sexual abuse of women and destroyed women who dared to tell the truth, for which see
Rich Lowry for a brief discussion of details,
Larry Elder ponders why Hillary has never been asked publicly about her role in the scandals,
Joe Scarborough says that times have changed, with her past behavior coming back to haunt her,
Camille Paglia agrees and discusses details,
Suzanne Fields,
Victor Davis Hanson. Donald Trump produced a
video that pulls no punches.
John Kass deals with the NYT hit piece on The Donald and why it is ineffective. Of course, he is referring to Hillary's husband. If I can find a less polemical article, I will replace this one, but for those who need a reminder.
Nancy French has offered 11 of the top Bill Clinton sex stories. If she is this wonderful woman Bill described at the convention, maybe he could enlighten us as to why all these affairs.
Juanita Broadrick has publicly offered her account of Bill raping her twice.
3. Hillary has no actual accomplishments and is not as qualified as she looks on paper:
Jonah Goldberg Thomas Sowell
George Will Cal Thomas Daniel Gallington Fred Barnes
4. Hillary was not an effective Secretary of State:
Herb London
5. She failed in Libya:
Jennifer Rubin George Will Michael Barone Pat Smith, mother of one of those murdered by Islamic militants, the movie 13 Hours.
6. She lied to the families of those killed in Benghazi and to the American people regarding a video in America that led to the attack, for the political reason that Obama had a campaign meme that al qada was on the run:
Bob Tyrell and
Andrew Napolitano explain in a reasonable way the trouble in which Hillary finds herself.
Ron Fournier explains why he does not believe Hillary. He is a liberal.
John Podhoretz outlines issues related to Benghazi, email controversy, and steady release of State Department emails.
John Solomon offers a factual account of the issues involved in Benghazi.
Debra J. Saunders offers her analysis of the Benghazi hearing.
Thomas Sowell discusses the media covering for Hillary.
He also writes of the attempt to re-make Hillary.
7. She lied about her email server:
Jonah Goldberg Rosland S. Helderman Jonah Goldberg In essence, Hillary is unreasonable, a non-criminal liar, and extremely careless with national security documents.
Kathleen Parker (video of her lies) An interview with Chris Wallace received 4 Pinocchio's from
Washington Post,
Glenn Kessler analyzes further.
8. The corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation and their use of it for their personal wealth and only 15% going to charities:
Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote the New York Times article,
Rosalind S. Helderman wrote the Washington Post article,
Linda Chavez explained the issues involved in a brief piece,
John Stossel suggests that Hillary has a natural protection against suffering any consequences from her questionable actions,
Jonah Goldberg notes that Hillary lies, even when it came to an interview she finally had, claiming she has not received a subpoena.
9. In terms of this type of lying, read M. Scott Peck, "People of the Lie."
10. Her propensity is toward military involvement while her opponent is less so:
Thaddeus Russell.
11. The mess in Middle East, the rise of Islamic Militancy, and the rise of ISIS occur on her watch as Secretary of State:
Josef Joffe,
Catherine Herridge Jonah Goldberg Wesley Pruden
12. She was part of an administration that will not identify Islamic militancy as an enemy of America and the values of a democratic society: Paris, San Bernadino, Orlando (
Thomas Sowell,
Jonah Goldberg,
Ramesh Ponnuru ), Nice,
The Religion of Peace is a reliable site as is
The Counter-Jihad Report.
13. She is part of political party that seems to hate conservatives more than terrorists:
Mona Charen ponders whose side he is on;
The Hill Michael Barone
14. Willing to distract from focus on legitimate enemies, like Islamic militancy by focusing on political opponents with the use of homophobia (Orlando), Gun Control, or how bad America has been in the world.
15. Florida has become a Jihad playground:
Michelle Malkin
16. Islamic militants are engaging in genocide in the Middle East, but the instinct in America is for some to blame Christians and America.
17. Hillary voted for the military action against Iraq:
David Harsanyi
18. Under her watch, Iraq went from strength to weakness:
Robert Gates
19. Her desire to bring more refugees to America rather than provide a safe place closer to their home in Syria:
Jonah Goldberg Rich Lowry Mona Charen
20. Iran remains an issue with you:
Rachel Marsden Stephen Moore (class division)
James Shirk
21. Economic growth of 2% is simply not sufficient:
Stephen Moore Ben Shapiro Ken Blackwell David Horovitz Peter Morici Charles Krauthammer Donald Lambro,
Fred Barnes and
Cal Thomas(analysis of her economic speech)
Robert J. Samuelson
22. You do not like her soak the rich tax policy:
Robert J. Samuelson Walter Williams
23. You do not think the Koch Brothers are evil:
Jonah Goldberg
23. Her flip-flop on the TPP (free trade) means she will lie to win the support of some and then continue the deal when in office:
Jonah Goldberg
24. The Supreme Court is already too activist for the progressive agenda and Hillary would make it even more so.
25. You do not think it right to say that GOP opposition to Planned Parenthood, due to partial-birth abortion, is akin to terrorism:
Carly Fiorina Mark Halperin Joy Overbeck (about founder of this organization and the praise Hillary gave her)
26. You think that if she is against the "war on women" by the GOP, she should at least pay women as much as men on her own staff:
Newt Gingrich Mark Halperin
27. You think women have been disadvantaged during the Obama years:
Stephen Moore
28. She flip-flopped on immigration:
Matt Vespa and
Video on Youtube
29. You analyze her convention speech and find it wanting:
Cal Thomas, Dennis Prager (making appeal to NeverTrump Conservatives)
Reasons to vote for Hillary:
1. She is a woman.
2. You hate Trump.
Some general articles that I still find interesting:
The top 1 percent accounted for 14.6 percent of pretax income in 2011 and paid 24 percent of federal taxes. Clinton would raise total taxes 1.1 trillion over the decade, with 3/4 coming from the upper one percent. Sanders tax package would raise a staggering $15.3 trillion over a decade. Most taxpayers would be hit. It would make more sense if Hillary would calmly re-state the traditional Democrat Party line and let Bernie promote his socialism.
Carl Rove compares the message of President Clinton and the message of Hillary, and finds the latter wanting. examines her record, and finds its failures not balanced by successes.
In July,
Rush Limbaugh gave a surprisingly good analysis of the view that Republicans are the extremist party in America. I say surprising because he presents that view quite well. Of course, his view is that the Democrat Party is the extremist party. If you read this article fully, you will get exposure to both.
In May,
Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing the Democrat Party.
Hillary seemed to get into demagoguery when she accused Republicans of wanting to keep people from voting. In supporting a lawsuit against Ohio, for example, she failed to note that New York has only one day to vote, while Ohio has a month to vote.
Bill Murchison discusses this matter.
Mona Charen calls it the "They hate you" strategy.
Third, reasons to vote against Donald Trump
To paraphrase the former British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne, what all the wise men promised has not happened and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass (Michael Barone reference, but appropriate here). I am among those who, at the beginning of the Republican nomination process, said "please no" regarding Donald and Ted. Of course, that did not happen.
David Limbaugh offers why conservatives who respect the constitution ought to have some concerns about Trump, and why Trump supporters should be understanding and sympathetic of these concerns.
Christine Flowers reverses her previous "never Trump" articles and offers the Supreme Court as her reason.
Here is the
Republican Party Platform. It is 66 pages. In skimming it, I did not find much that surprised me. The "fair trade" element is new, and one that I am willing to re-consider. I remained concerned about trade wars.
Jonah Goldberg notes the failure of the GOP convention to unite the party. In other conventions, enough commonality existed among the candidates. The convention provided a time to unite. With the non-appearance of Bush, McCain, Romney, Cheney, Jeb, Kasich, and I am sure others, this convention failed. I am listing speeches by some family and people who knew him because of the willingness so many have had to go toward ad hominem attacks. I think these persons show that trump does not have horns, a tail, and pitchfork. I was particularly struck by accounts of him as an encourager and cheerleader. I saw some of that in his speech.
Melania Trump gave a fine speech in favor her husband. However, about 50 words were lifted out of Michele Obama's speech. After that, much false outrage ensued on the internet. I say false because many of these same persons will be all in for Hillary. I can think of few people who have lowered political discourse more than she has done, including her recent lying to the American people about emails and lying to the family of those who died in Libya.
Meredeth McIver said that as a staffer, she took down some notes over the phone that Melania gave to her. Melania said she liked some of the things that Michelle said in her speech. However, she took responsibility for not checking the speech and citing it.
Rudolf Giuliani prosecuted the case against Hillary.
Gov. Christie also prosecuted the case against Hillary. He gave a speech that had some controversy as the crowd shouted "Jail her." For those who have a concern about this language,
Jonah also has a brief defense.
Scott Walker delivered a powerful message.
Donald Trump Jr gave what most think was a good speech for his father. The same with Eric.
Mike Pence gave a solid speech, much more traditional than most of the speeches. It contained a solid conservative message. Ted Cruz was his normal, isolated, arrogant self. He did urge people to vote their conscience. He admitted the next day that he did not endorse because of what he said about Heidi and his dad during the election. If he had wisdom as well as intelligence, he would have done what Jeb, Kasich, Carly, Rand Paul, and others had done, and stayed home. At the same time, most of us have had the experience, in dealing with an opponent, to give them enough rope to hang themselves. I wonder if that is what happened here. In any case, the obvious glorying in the spotlight by Ted might have led Republicans to unite. No one likes a sore loser. Red State is a NeverTrump conservative organization. It was behind Ted Cruz, including what he did on Wednesday night.
One article stresses why they persist. As the article puts it:
he wasn't willing to sell his family out for a political party. He wasn't willing compromise his beliefs by joining hands with a man who is an enemy of everything conservatism stands for. He wasn't willing to stand and be counted with the army of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, 9/11 truthers, and other such filth that run with Trump's cabal. He wasn't willing to make a mockery of his faith in order to push a political cause nor blaspheme his Savior by paying homage to an amoral charlatan.
Since I have not been a Trump supporters, and these things have bothered me as well, I feel no need to defend. I remain concerned. As noted above, though, I have similar types of concerns about Hillary. Am I naïve? I know I can be. However, listening to the accounts from his family and friends, I have to make a choice of whom I trust more. Here is a good example of what happens when you have conflicting witnesses to the character of a person. It becomes especially troubling when you have people on both sides that you respect. Is it sour grapes on the part of Red State, Jonah Goldberg, and Erick Erickson, since their Cruz did not win? Do they have an insight into the soul of Trump that his friends clearly do not have? I stress that the things to which the article points trouble me. The idea that David Duke, for example, would like anything I said would make me go through some self-examination that I do not see Trump doing.
Donald Trump gave what I thought was a powerful presentation of his position. It was nationalist and populist. I doubt that I have ever heard a relatively full presentation of his position. Contrary to some I do not think that concern for who is coming into the country is xenophobia, whether from Mexico or from Arab countries. I appreciated his comments on the gay community. In fact, the convention has made clear respect for the diversity of this nation. Trump has made a special appeal to the inner cities. He is concerned that our government seems to have little concern for who comes into the country, even if they are dangerous people. He gives full-throated support to those on the front lines of the security of the people. He is concerned with foreign entanglements such as treaties and military involvements, that do not bring an advantage back to the United States. I remained concerned about his vision of trade with foreign countries. Depressions, including the Great Depression, begin with trade wars. However, it fits with his nationalism. I am willing to re-examine by views on this. In particular, I find it at least puzzling that you need hundreds of pages to say that nations have free trade. If it really is free, should it not take a line or two? It begins to look suspiciously like favoring some businesses in the respective countries over others.
As with Hillary, so with Trump, people react to him to him at a personal level.
1. You just do not like Trump. Before Trump announced, his appearances on Fox & Friends repulsed me. His conduct of the campaign, although he won in the end, seemed bullying and abusive.
2. You think he is racist, hates women, and is fascist. Conservatives make the accusation as well as liberals. The danger here is
the little boy who cried wolf. If you are liberal/progressive, I hope you can be honest about this. Every conservative in your mind is all these things. I am old enough to remember, George Wallace, Sen Fulbright from Arkansas and mentor of Bill Clinton, and Bull Connor. I now have the witness of his family, friends like Guiliani and Christie, and NBC for hiring him to lead a popular TV show.
Adam Gopnick of the New Yorker offers a re-definition of fascism as nationalism. "the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. It promises to turn back time and take no prisoners." My problem with his argument is that he uses the same style of argument as does Trump/Nationalist/Fascist. He uses the term "fascist" to refer to one whom he admits is a "nationalist." Why not just call him nationalist? Obviously, "fascist" magnifies the danger of Trump, raising the image of Hitler and Mussolini. Why do that? Because you want to magnify the danger of Trump and make it easier for the many Americans who do not like Hillary to vote for her. For me, evidence of such charges would be in words and deeds. One can lift anything out of context and make it sound like what you want it to say, especially strung together. I am trying to make a distinction between disagreeing with a policy, such as deporting anyone here illegally or banning all Muslims from coming to the USA, which we can read as a concern for national security and the safety of citizens, and saying the motivation is racism. My hesitation on such charges is that I do not know his heart. My hesitation is that I know people who support Trump and I know they are not racist, etc. Rudy Giuliani is a prime example of someone who knows Trump personally and can give full-throated endorsement at the GOP convention. My hesitation is that I do not think a reality star like Trump would have been hired by NBC if he were a hated any race or gender, and they would certainly not a fascist. My discomfort, again, is that there are many reasons I have for not liking Trump. Having said all of this, if I come across reasonable articles that are able to point to words, which in the Donald's case will be plenty, and to the actions, I will post them. For example,
Leon H. Wolff of Red State, a conservative site, says that Donald will be worse than the 1964 Republicans, in part because Donald is racist. His evidence is the comments about the judge of Mexican descent and his retweeting of white supremacist and openly courting white supremacist votes. Now, the difficulty I always have with Donald is that does such words and actions fall under the stupid things Donald does and says, or does it betray a darker motivation. In any case, Republicans have many Hispanic representatives, two of them ran for President, and will usually get 25-40% of their vote nationally and 40% in Texas. The point is that Donald could be like Goldwater in losing that vote to the Democrat Party. This author has identified why I have not favored Donald and the danger I think he is to GOP and to a conservative view of governance.
3. He is too simple, ignorant, and narcissistic. Daniel W. Dresner writes about
the trouble with Trump 4. Following up one emperor, Obama, with another, Trump, is not a good thing:
Angelo Codevilla Thomas Sowell
5. We need maturity:
ThomasSowell
Thomas Sowell
6. He is a demagogue:
Mona Charen
7. You are a Christian and have a problem with Trump:
Mark Tooley Max Lucado Robert P. George and George Weigel (Roman Catholic)
8. You remain a NeverTrump person due to your personal political conservativism:
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.
9. Trump will damage the GOP brand and give conservativism a bad name for generations.
George Will has spoken on this matter.
He has updated his concerns.
Jeb Bush (July 2016)
Thomas Sowell Kathleen Parker
10. While Trump is a businessman, he has business practices are not exemplary and his policies are not good economics: Brett Arends Jonathan Hoenig
11. You are for free trade and Trump is not:
Rich Lowry Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore
12. You are not with Trump on illegal immigration:
Linda Chavez Mona Charen Thomas Sowell George Will George Will Helen Raleigh
13. His tax plan will not provide growth:
Robert J. Samuelson
14. You do not like the idea of expanding eminent domain:
Jeff Jacoby
15. You do not like the "morality-free" zone Trump has created:
Mona Charen
You might vote for Trump.
1.
Mark Cunningham has written of how Trump has a new way to win.
2. You react to the last 8 years in such a way that Obama explains the appeal of Trump. His policies regarding illegal immigration and terrorism seem weak. Political correctness is becoming oppressive. You view this as bullying opponents into submission and feel the need for a strong and forceful leader to oppose it. You want someone unapologetic in their patriotism and thus obviously loves their country. Elites, defined as Washington DC, Wall Street, Academia, much of the media, and Hollywood, need to stop their bullying of the common person, the person in the street, the middle class.
Joe Scarborough Conor Friedersdorf (!)
Glenn Reynolds
3. You distrust the government:
David Brady and Douglas Rivers
4. You are a conservative, but it seems as if "free trade" deals are short on results:
Jim Tankersley
5. You are generally conservative, meaning you know you are not liberal, but some of the traditional stances of the GOP are no longer your positions:
Philip Rucker and Dan Balz Alicia Colon
6. You want the GOP to loosen its ties to a strictly conservative politics, especially as embodied in the Bush family and "neo-con" foreign policy:
Jonah Goldberg Fred Barnes
7. You are willing to follow talk radio on the "conservative" side who have at least been generous with Trump: Rush, Sean, and Mark
8. Therefore, you have grown to distrust or even hate the GOP establishment, even though conservatives in those districts have elected them and even thought the GOP establishment has many victories in the Senate, House, Governor, and state legislatures since the election of Obama.
Michael Gerson
9. Jim Tankersley and Max Ehrenfreund discuss the policies of Trump.
10. Karen DeJong and Jose A. DelReal write about the Trump foreign policy speech.
11. You have a high concern for illegal immigration. You are with Trump on immigration: Rick Noack discusses the New Year's Eve sexual assaults by Muslim men of German women. Terry Jeffrey. Family Security Matters
12. His tax policies are broadly conservative: Larry Kudlow
Here are a few articles I could not classify, but remain of some interest.
Victor Davis Hanson offers his view of Trumpsters.
Sadly, just because I usually like him, 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.May 2016 -
Red State had an article that states clearly that Hillary is not better than Trump.
Charles Krauthammer says the supposed anger at the Republican Establishment resulted in the nomination of the most liberal of the 17 candidates.
Jonah Goldberg, a NeverTrump and NeverHillary person, says Trump could win and explains how. argues that like the legend of Herbert Hoover, Donald Trump, if he won, would have long-term negative impact upon the Republican Party if he won.
George Will wonders who will follow Trump over the cliff. thinks "farewell" to the GOP and commends Paul Ryan.
Robert Costa and Philip Rucker say that conservatives are stepping back from the GOP.
Victor Davis Hanson has little good to say about Trump, but less about Hillary. Solid article on how conservatives are in a tough place.
He also wrote of the myth of progress that is part of the Obama and progressive way of thinking.
Denis Prager says the scariest reason that Trump won is that Republicans are not conservatives. "The four most-often cited reasons are the frustrations of white working-class Americans, a widespread revulsion against political correctness, disenchantment with the Republican establishment, and the unprecedented and unrivaled amount of time the media afforded Trump."
Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing both political parties.
April 2016 –
Bernie Goldberg makes the point that both Hillary and Trump have the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidates in polling history.
George Will, with a twist of irony, says that the Trump campaign may, if it leads to reform of the primary process in the states, turn out for the public good.
Ron Danker, a Cruz supporter, explains what Trump saw that Cruz did not regarding conservativism in this election.
Fourth, and too close, an interesting analysis of the political landscape
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."
