Presidential Election 2016-November

I offer a few reflections that are my attempt to process the election. I started these reflections before its results. My goal here is to offer a space of calm reflection. I realize that some have deep-seated fear and anxiety regarding the outcome of a President-elect Donald Trump. I will not re-litigate the election. I want to see if we can listen to the voters. Since the election has not ended on election day, I am extending my remarks.

Victor Davis Hanson offers his reflections on the mythologies of the 2016 election. Newt Gingrich offers his interpretation of Trumpism. Hoover Institute had a discussion of the relationship between conservative intellectuals and Donald Trump. It also had a discussion with Kellyanne Conway, the first female to head a presidential election.

Regardless of our thoughts about Trump, it masks the depth of the defeat experienced by the Democrat Party. As we shall see, Republican victories in the 50 states reveals that the Democrat Party has largely become a metropolitan party. A Hillary victory would have masked the depth of the defeat. Now, we see it clearly.

As I write, some people have taken to the street to protest. The protests arise from a view of Trump typified by a theology professor at Princeton, who posted a 1922 news piece in which the writer suggested that Hitler was not serious about his anti-Semitism. If you have such a view, if it corresponded to reality, would stimulate even such a political conservative as me to demonstrate against, although never with violence. I do not want to add fuel to that fire. Rather than increasing fear, anxiety, and anger, as this theology professor seems to want to do, I want to help people calm down. Thus, the reaction of demonstrating with violence, of beating up people who did not vote your way, concerns me.

An attempt to discredit the results of this election persists.

One approach is to focus on the popular vote. I briefly say here that the rules of the election were known to all. We have 51 elections occurring at the same time. We do so for practical and historical reasons that we learned in sixth grade. Where Hillary and Donald went head-to-head in terms of their personal presence, Donald won.

As I write, Jill Stein failed in what assume was her objective to turn some states from Trump to Hillary after a recount. So far, Trump has gained votes in Wisconsin and they discovered voter fraud in Detroit which would decrease the number of Hillary votes. In my view, this is part of the Liberal-Progressive attempt to discredit the election results.

As I write, the next step in discrediting the election is to focus on Russian hacking. I have no problem with studying any Russian attempts to influence the election. If there were attempts, we need to know about them. The motive of those pursuing this line of attack seem obvious to me. They also mask the content of the revealed emails from John Podesta. If you will think logically for a moment, these emails revealed that the fix was in within the Democrat Party primary to make sure that Hillary won. In reality, Bernie never had a chance. As to the source, is it more likely that a disgruntled Democrat who simply wanted a fair nomination process leaked these emails or is it more likely the Russians did it?

The next step in discrediting the election is the attempt to get electors on December 19 to change their votes. There are often faithless electors who vote a different way than their state directed them. At this point, I know of one from Texas. I do not expect this attempt to succeed.

I might as well say it. Losing builds character. It takes an adult and mature approach to the world to accept defeat graciously and learn what one can from it. Maybe some people, in the age of everyone getting a trophy, have delayed losing until too late in life. Losing happens. The mature response is to listen to those to whom you lost. Such a response requires some spiritual maturity and a prayerful approach to life and fellow citizens. The response of violence to those with whom you disagree and burning the flag are typical responses of Leftist totalitarians in other countries. The response of blaming someone other than oneself for a loss is not the path to learning. People who disagree with the outcome of this election need to pause, calm down, listen to what their fellow citizens are really saying, and learn. However, David Harsanyi has an excellent reflection that the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive never loses an election. If so, they will refuse to lean anything from the depth of their defeat.

Another thing happening as I write a few days after the election is the peaceful transition of power. Hillary has urged people to give the President-elect a chance. President Obama has met with him and was quite gracious. I realize the picture during the election was that he was a racist and misogynist. During the election, people made much of certain KKK fears. Finally, President-elect Trump gave such persons plenty of ammunition for such accusations in his words. I do not defend his behavior or his words. I just ask a question. Would Hillary and President Obama be so gracious if they really believed the worst things said about President-elect Trump? Would they willingly offer a peaceful transition of power to someone who was the racist and misogynist many came to believe President-elect Trump was? In happier times, the Clintons and Trumps were friendly enough to attend the same parties in NYC. Trump had given money to her campaign. As I will share in a moment, I do not defend Trump. I do want to urge people who have such fears to step back and look at what is happening. If Hillary and President Obama can be gracious in defeat, maybe others can be as well. At least, one can keep their fears and anger at bay, wait and see how the President-elect actually governs, and if necessary, give birth to new political opposition. That is the democratic process at work.

A good reminder, given the bitter nature of the campaign, comes from John Wesley.
“October 6, 1774
I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them
1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy
2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against, and
3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.”

A possible timely word to those tempted to respond with anger toward those who voted differently than you might have liked. Mat 5:44-5 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven ... Rom 8:17-18 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

As I said, I have had a need to process this election. Thus, I want to express to myself and to a potential reader why this election has caused so much disturbance for me.  After all, I did not like Trump before the election. His speculations about the birth certificate were a deal breaker for me. When he announced his candidacy, he said and did things that I thought would eliminate from the crowded Republican field of candidates. As a political conservative in the mold of William F. Buckley and George Will, I have not had anyone whom I could support with joy in the general election. I felt homeless politically in my country before. I have felt homeless politically this year because of the candidates nominated on both sides. I voted early and privately with my wife, which was for me a way to get the duty out of the way.

From a Christian view of the providence of God, we can have faith or trust that God will work through it all to bring glory to God. As Paul in Romans 8:28 put it, God causes all things to work together for the purposes of God. I have learning how anxiety is often a symbol of our lack of control. I have been learning a lesson in what it means trust God as the future remains unknown. Trust in God in the way seems toward the goal seems winding and full of detours is difficult. If you trust in the progressive or conservative political ideology, you have placed your trust in the wrong place. In a democracy, an important part of elections is at least try to take off your ideological glasses, look at your opponent, and listen to what their votes actually say rather than what your ideology says they meant.

One thing we often forget, though, is that God may act in judgment upon this nation. The Bible also gives us many examples of deeply flawed individuals through whom God worked. One thinks of Samson and King David.

I would now like to start the process of listening to the voters.

I want to listen to the struggle within the Republican Party. The battle between "Establishment" and "Nationalist/Populist" in the Republican Party is real. Even with Republicans to some degree controlling the agenda in Washington, the Party is divided. The talk radio of which I write used to have commitment to conservative ideas of governance. Many have abandoned that notion in favor of Trump. The anger at those they consider Establishment Republicans is intense. This creates an interesting dynamic, for the people have kept establishment Republican politicians in power while electing an anti-Establishment President. It will be interesting how these people work it out. They have some common ground in policies, but also many in which they differ. Free Trade, secure borders, and foreign military involvements are among the differences within the party right now. Here is a place where those with conservative political ideas need to listen. At the presidential level, after all, political conservatives lost in this election in a big way. I have been for free trade, and still am, but I am willing to listen to some new ideas. I think it makes sense to secure the border, to provide work visas, to speed the immigration process, and provide a path citizenship, but such a position in the Trump vision seems out of place. I think reform of entitlements is essential to getting the budget under control, something Donald says is off the table. 

I have much to learn at my advanced age (65). I am happy that I do not have to put up with another Clinton and the corruption they bring. I am not happy with the election of Donald. I am happy with the election of the House and surprised-happy with the election in the Senate. For those fearful of Trump, I would remind you that many Republicans share the concern! I do not believe that Republicans will simply tow the Trump line. I believe they will provide a check on some of the more outlandish things he has proposed.

In fact, here is a reminder of the checks and balances of our system. The President is not a dictator. We are a nation of laws. We have government workers, the Congress, and the Supreme Court who would hinder any President from doing the worst that opponents fear. Slate has a long article that I hope can calm down the reader anxious about such matters.

I found an article by George Will just before the election to be helpful in asking the right questions as to what voters were actually saying in this election. The numbers below are readily available on the Internet. They depend on the accuracy of exit polls. An article by Karl Rove also helped with the data.

George Will says that in the 17 elections since World War II, the winner has averaged 385.4 electoral votes, the loser 145.1. My prediction was that this election would end close to that total, with Hillary the winner. I went to bed early, my wife staying up until 2 AM, assuming that Hillary would be the next President.- I have never been so wrong about an election. I honestly thought that with the last week, it looked as if some of the trends toward Trump had stopped. It looks as if Trump will receive 306 electoral votes with about 48% of those who voted. This is the fifth time in history that the winner of the Electoral College also lost the popular vote. It is the 14th time that the winner didn’t receive 50% of ballots. This is a good reminder - 52% of the electorate did want either candidate the Democrat and Republican Party put up for election this year! It is also a good reminder that the electoral college still serves its purpose. Some deep blue states have large populations and go so solidly for the Democrat that two states, NY and CA, would largely run the country. This would not be healthy. It is also much harder to rig the election when we have 51 separate elections rather than just one. Charles Blahous offers that the electoral college is a moderating influence upon American elections According to one article, about 57 percent of eligible voters cast ballots this year, down from 58.6 percent in 2012 and 61.6 percent in 2008, which was the highest mark in 40 years. Turnout still remained well above levels for most presidential election years from 1972 to 2000. The drop in turnout was uneven. On average, turnout was unchanged in states that voted for Trump, while it fell by an average of 2.3 percentage points in states that voted for Clinton. Relatedly, turnout was higher in competitive states.

Will also says that Republican nominees’ popular-vote totals this century are: 2000 (George W. Bush) 50,455,156 (47.9%); 2004 (Bush) 62,040,610 (50.7%); 2008 (John McCain) 59,934,814 (45.7%); 2012 ( Mitt Romney) 60,932,152 (47.2%). Measure Trump’s total accordingly, bearing in mind that there are 10 million more eligible voters in 2016 than in 2012 and nearly 20 million more than in 2008. - So far, Trump has 61.9 million (46.5%). If Will was thinking that Trump would drop below the Romney totals, it appears he was wrong. These totals make me wonder if many people stayed home. I can only speculate as to why they did. In this case, the non-voter may have done so intentionally, not liking either candidate. Some of these persons voted third party and they had a significant impact upon this election, given how close it was (1.7 million separating Hillary and Trump, with Hillary getting the most). The pool of eligible voters rose 5.5% compared with four years ago—to 227 million from 215.1 million, according to the Census Bureau. Yet the number of ballots cast increased only 1.5%, to 131.2 million from 129.2 million. The votes cast for the two major parties fell in absolute terms. In 2012 the Republicans and Democrats took 126.9 million votes. This year? Only 123.7 million. Third-party candidates grabbed their biggest share since 1996: 5.5%, which translates into 7.5 million votes.

George Will writes of the swing states. I would note that many of these states saw the winner gathering less than 50% of the vote. He provides the numbers for Romney in 2012 and I provide the numbers for Trump. Texas, 4,569,843 (57 percent; Trump 4.6 53%); Florida, 4,163,447 (49 percent; Trump 4.5 million 49%); Pennsylvania, 2,680,434 (47 percent; Trump 2.9 million 49%); Ohio, 2,661,407 (48 percent; Trump 2.7 52%); Michigan, 2,115,256 (45 percent; Trump 2.2, 48%); Virginia, 1,822,522 (47 percent; Trump 1.7 45%); Arizona, 1,233,654 (54 percent; Trump .9 50%); Colorado, 1,185,243 (46 percent; Trump 1.0 45%); Nevada, 463,567 (46 percent; Trump .5 46%); New Hampshire, 329,918 (47 percent; Trump .3, 47%). - Trump lost Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada in this group. Trump clearly out-performed Romney. Will was clearly wrong in thinking Trump would underperform Romney.

I have never seen the sure Democrat and Republican sates listed. This list shows why the electoral college is, at present, in favor of the Democrat candidate, no matter who the Republicans nominate. Here is Will's list:
● The “blue wall” consists of 18 states and the District of Columbia (90% for Hillary). The total electoral votes of these states is 242. The criteria is that they have voted Democrat in at least six consecutive elections. I have included Hillary's numbers, thinking that any of these states that went beneath 50% in an election like this might not be part of the blue wall anymore. California 62, Connecticut 54, Delaware 53, Hawaii 61, Illinois 55, Maine 47, Maryland 59, Massachusetts 60, Michigan 47, Minnesota 46, New Jersey 55, New York 58, Oregon 49.9, Pennsylvania 47, Rhode Island 54, Vermont 61, Washington state 56, Wisconsin 47. - Of this group of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin went to Trump. This means that what Trump said would happen actually happened. He believed he could change the electoral map. Thus, George Will was wrong here.
● The Republicans’ “red wall” (in at least six consecutive elections) consists of 13 states with 102 electoral votes. The numbers are for Trump. In this case, the one state that is below 50% is because the state had a strong conservative who presented an alternative to Trump. Alabama 63, Alaska 52, Idaho 59, Kansas 57, Mississippi 58, Nebraska 60, North Dakota 63, Oklahoma 65, South Carolina 55, South Dakota 61, Texas 52, Utah 47, Wyoming 62. - These states remain Republican. In addition, Ark 60, Georgia 51, Indiana 57, Iowa 51, Kentucky 62, Louisiana 58, Missouri 56, Montana 56, Tennessee 61, and West Virginia 68, and surprisingly, Ohio 52, are candidates for a future composition of the red wall.
-Trump was able to break the Democrat blue wall, Hillary did not break into the red wall. Thus, Will was again wrong in his suggestion that some of these states would abandon Trump.

Among the concerns was that Trump would bring down the rest of the Republican ticket. We have a mixed bag here. The Democrats lost the House in 2010. In 2014, they lost the Senate. In 2009, Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate. They have 48 now. Republicans lost a few seats in the House but retain control. They increased governorships to 33, despite the Democrat Party spending significantly more money than the Republican Party on this effort. The Democrat Party has only 6 states in which they have the governor and both legislatures, while for Republicans the number is 24. In 8 additional states, both houses of the legislature are under Republican control but have a Democrat governor. My point is only that the Democrat Party is actually the one that proves to be in trouble after this election. I did not expect this as a result of this election. At the same time, if this were a genuine "wave" election, I think you would have seen growth of the Republican majority in the House. Were some of the losses here due to the way Trump conducted his campaign? I do not know. The Senate is a different animal, in this this year, many more Republicans were up for re-election than Democrats. It really is quite remarkable the Republican Party kept control of the Senate.

For whom will the under 30 voter cast their vote? The last Republican to win this vote was Reagan. 37% for Trump.

The secular voter is growing and supports the Democrat Party. - That trend continues, with Clinton receiving 68% of the "no religion" vote, which was 15% of the electorate. In related news, Trump received 81% of the evangelical vote. He also won other categories of Christian, Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon. He did not win the Jewish vote, with 24%. I am well aware that some Christians, especially on the political left, find it discouraging (mild term) that self-identified Christians voted for Trump.

Republicans have carried the white college educated vote. Will that continue? - George Will was right here. Trump significantly outscored on the non-degree part of the country. Trump won the non-degree voter with 52% of their vote and he received 43% of the college degree voter. However, is this bad? Republicans may well be re-shaping their country-club image. Only 18% of voters had a high school education or less, down from 24% last time, according to the exit poll. Mr. Trump received 12 million votes from them, 2.2 million fewer than Mr. Romney. Mrs. Clinton got 10.6 million votes, 5.8 million fewer than Mr. Obama. Those with a two-year degree or some college grew to 32% of turnout, up from 29%. Compared with 2012, Mr. Trump gained 3.8 million, and Mrs. Clinton dropped 350,000. Voters with a B.A. also increased to 32% from 29%. Among them Mr. Trump gained 260,000 and Mrs. Clinton gained 2.9 million.

Romney gathered 17% of the nonwhite vote. Will that increase or decrease? - My surprise here is that Trump gathered 21%! 8% of the African-American vote went to Trump, which is more than Romney's 6%, but within the range of the normal Republican vote. He also received 29% of the Hispanic/Latino and the Asian vote, while Romney got 27%. He won the white vote 58 percent to 37 percent. In 1984, whites made up 86 percent of the total electorate. That number was 72 percent in 2012. And 70 percent in 2016. Both candidates this year won fewer white votes—Mr. Trump 1.6 million and Mrs. Clinton 2.3 million—than four years ago. 11% of the electorate was Hispanic, a 1% increase over 2012. Mrs. Clinton received nearly 9.4 million Latino votes, up 180,000 from Mr. Obama’s total in 2012. But because Mr. Trump won 29% of Hispanics, up from Mr. Romney’s 27%, the president-elect won 4.2 million Latino votes, roughly 690,000 more than Mr. Romney. 12% of the electorate was Black. On gender he received 54% of the male vote and 47% of the female vote. However, with white women he received 52% of their vote. If one wants to read this data as "white" revolt, one can. I think that is on the surface of the matter. Morning Joe had an interesting discussion of this matter. In my view, this is much more a reaction against political correctness and the prejudices of the Left against anyone who disagrees with them. A majority of people stood up to say No, with 52% of the people voting against Hillary, the candidate who would continue President Obama's legacy. What I find striking is that Trump's numbers are better than Romney when it comes to both non-whites and women voters. This ought to give one pause as to the racist and misogynist accusations. George Will makes a good point in his article after the election that several states that have been Republican are changing in their composition of minorities, such as Arizona, Texas, Nevada, and Georgia.  Those who are politically conservative need to find a way to persuade minorities that their ideas are better than the liberal approach if they really want to improve their lives. Given the numbers in Washington DC for Republicans, the way they actually govern, if it proves to set the country on a better course, will likely be persuasive to many minorities.

-I will look forward to the comments of George Will. He has largely been wrong so far as to what he thought would happen with Trump at the head of the ticket. In his article after this election, he pointed to some things Obama has done that this election wants rolled back, such as executive orders, Obamacare, and the Iran treaty. He then wrote, "The simultaneous sickness of both parties surely reveals a crisis of the U.S. regime. The GOP was easily captured, and then quickly normalized, by history’s most unpleasant and unprepared candidate, whose campaign was a Niagara of mendacities. And the world’s oldest party contrived to nominate someone who lost to him." In another article, he refers to the difficulty that those who have been conservative will have with this "conservative of convenience" in Trump. As with many "never Trump" people from the conservative side, he remains unimpressed with the liberal aspects of his agenda, especially on trade, but even more, the anger that seems to drive much of the Trump campaign.

A few thoughts on the victory of Donald Trump.
- A hint of this outcome was Hillary was not breaking 50% in swing states or nationally. Trump would have an awful week, but her numbers did not change from her 45%. Trump numbers would fluctuate. Further, if Trump was as bad as his opponents said he was, she ought to have broken the 50% marker a long ago. Very simply, many dislike Hillary and her corruption. They wrestled with the obvious deficiencies of Trump. 
- Given the accusation of racist, hating women, and other hates, maybe around 3-6% of the Trump vote was silent. They did not engage a fight with family and friends who took such views of Trump. Many of these were blue collar voters, whose unions told them to vote Hillary. They did not. The economic appeal Trump made apparently won them over.
- It looks like Hillary will get more of the popular vote than Trump. 52% did not want either Bill or Hillary. Many (43%) intentionally stayed home.
- Nationalism/Populism won, not conservativism or liberalism. This was an election against the establishment/elite, especially NYC/WashingtonDC/LA/SF/Entertainment/MSM/Progressive culture. Nationalism and Populism may feel like racism to some, but it does not have to be.
- I think I was wrong because I really thought people would choose the safe route of Hillary vs the risk of Trump. I also thought the Clinton machine was unbeatable.
- I hope that people who focus on race and hatred of women will pause and re-consider their view of those who voted for Trump. I have already suggested that the peaceful transition to President-elect Trump that President Obama and Hillary are making is a positive example at this stage. In addition, I invite you to reflect upon what happened in certain states to push them into the Trump column. Try to imagine the painful reality of this election cycle in general that led many persons to stay home. They did not vote. Some were liberal and some were conservative. They are politically active in general, but did not think they had a candidate for whom they could vote. Try to imagine what it would take for someone who wants their vote to count, but instead votes for a third party candidate they know will lose, not out of arrogance but out of conscience. Try to imagine the feeling of disenfranchisement that led to higher vote totals in rural America and the lower vote totals among millennials and African-Americans. Many persons were just tired of 12 (since Bush) years of salary stagnation, no growth, bail outs, executive orders, lies, deceit, false unemployment numbers, increase on government dependency, surrender in the nation’s security, and back room deals with Iran. To think that mass immigration is risky and destabilizing is not racist. Urging the support of traditional marriage is not degrading of other forms of domestic partnerships. Education may well need more rigor, discipline, and selection. We may need to deter crime through its punishment rather than its indulgence. Pornography may well damage civility. Objecting to abolishing national borders and sovereignty (nationalism) is not the same as degrading people from other lands. Objecting to the violent intervention into foreign countries does not make one weak on national defense or security. Here is another way to re-think the racism accusation. Historically, the white working class has been the backbone of the Democrat Party. Republicans have won the majority of college-educated whites. Trump reversed this, losing the college educated vote but winning the white working class vote. Many of the counties in which the white working class live favored Barack Obama by double digits. On Tuesday, they favored Trump by double digits. The Democrat Party lost the white working class this election (this is hardly permanent) because of its courting of campus leftists and affluent cosmopolitan whites. In the process, many Democrats went directly to labeling the Trump voter as racist. I will grant that those who are conservative, which I distinguish from Trump, have a lot of work to persuade more minorities of the superiority of politically conservative ideas. The advantage the Republican Party has is that it has the power into enact its agenda. If the result is success in economics and peace, that will in itself persuade people. Testimony to this is the success of the Reagan years that turned the votes of the young voter to the Republican Party in the 80s.
- President Obama showed he could energize people to vote for him. People still approve of him. He did not show an ability to transfer that energy to others. The Democrat Party has lost seats throughout the country and Hillary losing now are examples.
- Hillary was a worse candidate than many people thought she was. By that, I mean the baggage of corruption she carried, the indebtedness to Wall Street, and her husband's scandals with women, all factored into the picture. Her experience was bad experience. I am not sure pundits realized how deeply people disliked her. This was as much a defeat of the Clintons as it was a Trump victory. Mr. Trump received about 317,000 more ballots than Mitt Romney, but also a slightly smaller—0.5%—percentage of voters. Mrs. Clinton received 3.5 million fewer ballots and 3.4% less than President Barack Obama. Mr. Trump didn’t win because he greatly expanded the GOP, but because Mrs. Clinton lost a significant chunk of the Obama coalition. Compared with 2012 she dropped 1.8 million African-Americans, one million voters age 18-29, 1.8 million voters aged 30-44, 2.6 million Catholics, and nearly 4.5 million voters with family income of $30,000 or less.
- I am amazed that Trump took on the Clinton and Bush dynasty, the establishment of both political parties, the media establishment, the entertainment industry, and essentially created his own movement. I do not know how it will end. Clinton outspent Trump 3-1 and raised more than a billion dollars. She received this money from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the great American gilded fortunes of Goldman Sachs, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Facebook and Google. These were not silent supporters. They were quite vocal and obvious in their support.
- As always, post-election analysis will keep trying to sort through lessons from losing for the Democrat Party. One prominent explanation is to focus upon Clinton as an unappealing corporate crony. If this interpretation becomes dominant, the likely outcome is to push the Party toward Bernie Sanders (75, 79 in 4 years) and Elizabeth Warren (67, 71 in 4 years), and thus, further to the Left. Michelle Obama anyone?
- As I write in December, President Obama and Hillary have become unhelpful in the peaceful transition of power. It is understandable. The depth of the Democrat defeat and the possibility that success on the part of the Trump over these four years could mean the decimation of their ideology naturally leads them to desperation. In this case, it means backing attempts to dispute the legitimating power of the vote America has taken. The danger of introducing Russian involvement and the undermining of the electoral college does not matter in this battle for power. Given how gracious both were immediately after the election, I find this disappointing.
- As a conservative, I find myself pleasantly surprised at the nominees for the Cabinet and Staff. What I am witnessing is that Trump and his cabinet are people of action as over against people of thought or intellect. These are people who will get things done. Charles Krauthammer offers his analysis of the appointees at this point. He was no friend of Trump during the nomination or election process, but seems impressed with these appointments.

Here is a prayer I have found helpful.

We come with troubled hearts to this place of prayer, O God. We have elected a new leader for our country. Many are pleased, but others are worried. But you are our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Because you are always near, we have no reason to fear, even when our world and our lives seem to be falling apart, crumbling beneath our very feet. In the midst of danger and destruction, violence and vice, malice and malady, you are a rock of faithfulness. You are a refuge in which we may find shelter, a port of safety from the storm and a mother's comfort from our fears and anxieties. Hide us now under your wings; cover us with your mighty hand. When the oceans rise and the thunder roars, we will soar with you above the floods, above the clouds, beyond the turmoil and chaos of this world. We will be still and know that you are God, and in you we will find rest for our weary hearts, and hope for our souls. Lord God, we are fully aware that we do not live in a perfect world. So open our eyes to what can be, O God. Let us be a people of faith-full action. May we ourselves be the answer when we wonder what to do; enable each of us to be a person who blurs boundaries of exclusion into circles of inclusion. Let us be a people of hope so that where darkness exists, we might bring light. Let us so live our lives that Jesus would say of us, "Here is a woman; here is a man; here is a child of great faith ... here is a person of great love." We beseech you, God of grace. Let it be so. We pray in the name of the one who showed us what a life of love and perfection looks like, Jesus the Christ who taught us to say when we pray ...

Presidential Election 2016 October

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. Jeff Jacoby says that if character matters at all, both candidates would be a moral disaster.

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. You can read more in my comments for July.

Second, reasons to vote Against Hillary

As a political conservative, 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 Washington Examiner article, 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. Here is another account.
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)
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 Glenn Kessler challenges her contention that tax cuts caused the financial crisis of 2008.
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

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. George Will continues to focus on the decline of conservativism and the rise of Trump.

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. You may think, like Leon Wolff of Red State, that the Republican party now stands for shallow, empty xenophobia, trade policy ignorance, an unserious and uninformed foreign policy, massive hikes to the minimum wage, and the pathological avoidance of personal responsibility. Of course, one must realize that Red State at least acts like a front for Ted Cruz, and Leon Wolff in particular does. 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 Charles Krauthammer says the attack on a gold star family may reveal to many how narcissistic he is.
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 Mona Charen (RIP GOP)
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
13. You are an evangelical Christian, you have doubts, but you have decided, along with Jesus in Luke 9:49-50, that one is not against you is for you. This amounts to having more concern for what Hillary will do against the church with the power of government and relying on the promise of Trump to defend evangelicals. Last Chance America Jim Garlow offers his reasons as well.

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,

Presidential Election 2016: Have the Major Political Parties Gone Too Far?

A little gallows humor: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are stranded at sea on a life boat. Who survives? America does!

That about sums up the choice the two major political parties have presented America.

At critical moments in American history, the political class has failed this nation. This may be one of those times. Nearly 40 years ago, in a famous speech at Harvard University, the great Alexander Solzhenitsyn said: “There are meaningful warnings which history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen.” It may well be that this is an election to ponder "the signs of the times."

Are the two political parties asking Americans to travel with them this year a bridge too far?

If so, and you are on the Left, Jill Stein of the Green Party may be your person. On the other hand, if you still think elections should be about lessening the role of the federal government, you might consider the Libertarian Party and its candidate, Gary Johnson. Johnson was a governor of Utah and his running mate was governor of Massachusetts.

I write this blog primarily to give us all pause and consider whom the two political parties offer to the American electorate as their recommendation to be the most powerful person in the world. At some point, we have the trust the people to sift through all the dust, maybe wait for the dust to settle, and gain some clarity. I hope this blog does not kick up more dust. I hope it helps us gain clarity.

First, 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. Here is another account.
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) Rich Lowry and Chris Cilizza discuss her references to Colin Powell and his response to her.
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. Huma Abedin's connections to Islamic militancy bothers you, Paul Sperry.
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

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. 

Second, 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. Oliver Darcy has written an excellent reflection on the role of talk radio in this election from a conservative perspective. He hopes for a decline in their ratings after Trump goes down to a resounding defeat.

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.

Here is a little reflection on the nominating convention. 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. You may think, like Leon Wolff of Red State, that the Republican party now stands for shallow, empty xenophobia, trade policy ignorance, an unserious and uninformed foreign policy, massive hikes to the minimum wage, and the pathological avoidance of personal responsibility. Of course, one must realize that Red State at least acts like a front for Ted Cruz, and Leon Wolff in particular does. 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. As a conservative in my view of the role of government, I find it typical for the media to join the Democrat Party in calling Trump a racist. He was not a racist, apparently, until he announced as a candidate in the Republican Party. My point is that regardless of who the nominee was, the media would join with the Democrat Party in this attack. 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 Charles Krauthammer says the attack on a gold star family may reveal to many how narcissistic he is.
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 Mona Charen (RIP GOP)
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 You define the battle more in populist terms of the people vs elites, and Rush Limbaugh actually had a good dialogue on this as nationalism vs globalism.
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 Charles Krauthammer discusses the immigration speech of Trump in September.
12. His tax policies are broadly conservative: Larry Kudlow
13. You are an evangelical Christian, you have doubts, but you have decided, along with Jesus in Luke 9:49-50, that one is not against you is for you. This amounts to having more concern for what Hillary will do against the church with the power of government and relying on the promise of Trump to defend evangelicals. Last Chance America Jim Garlow offers his reasons as well.

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.