Trump vs. Hillary. An historical election, in part because we have never had the two major candidates both have such high negative polling. Polls indicate that over 50% of Americans dislike them both, so…???? Anyway, they are our candidates. No amount of wishing them away will change that.
As someone who generally leans middle/right, the Trump phenomenon/fiasco has been especially interesting/infuriating. I was onboard the Never Trump train early on, but at the same time I always held out a little hope that he could convince me otherwise. That he would fulfill his promise that the primary season was just an act, a carnival sideshow, and that he would magically become “presidential” when it mattered.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan just handed Trump an opportunity to be exactly that, presidential. In an unprecedented move, the Speaker of the House refused to endorse the presidential candidate of his own party. Or at least, said he was “not ready” to do so. Trump could have taken up the challenge, said something like “Speaker Ryan is correct, I need to bring this party together and I am determined to do just that. I invite Speaker Ryan and other party leaders to meet with me and we can come together and discuss a host of issues, and then together we can lead this party to victory in November.” But it just isn’t in his DNA to collaborate. Instead, Trump responds in the only way he knows how, confrontationally. He said that he wasn’t ready to support Ryan’s agenda. So there, the trenches on the battlefield are dug.
Trump just doesn’t care. The very idea of a political party has very little use to him unless it is simply an apparatus to get him what he personally wants. Paul Ryan was talking about the great responsibility to live up to the best of the GOP legacy, to live up to the principles and leadership of Lincoln and Reagan. To Trump that hardly registers, and that is one of the many problems here.
What is Ryan doing? Is he giving cover to vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in Congress this year, so they can also distance themselves from a Trump scorched-earth candidacy? Is he trying to preserve true conservativism (which is a religion to Ryan, and a matter of convenience to Trump), where Ryan and others might actually be willing to throw this election in order to preserve the Republican Party for the long run? All are possibilities.
The greatest damage that Trump has done to the Republican cause is demographically. By 2050, many experts believe that the United States will be “majority-minority,” meaning that there will be no ethnic group that is a majority in this country. The fastest growing demographic is Hispanic. During the 1990’s, the Hispanic population passed up the African-American. I have argued for years that in many ways, the Hispanic population and the GOP are a good fit (social issues, economically). It is a matter of messaging and perhaps some movement on a few issues. The Republican establishment, like Paul Ryan, had realized this and were trying to work on this long term issue. Trump has blown that effort out of the water (tweeting a picture of The Donald enjoying a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo saying “I love Hispanics!,” notwithstanding).
If the Republican Party does not figure out a long term plan to expand its base, it will become a party perpetually in the wilderness. So Trump calls Hispanic immigrants rapists, he calls for a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, and shows an anachronistic, dismissive attitude towards roughly half of our population (women). As a father of two daughters, I would punch someone in the face if they spoke to one of them in the way that Trump has addressed women in public. For that reason alone, it is hard to stomach supporting him and having him be an example to my girls. Trump has managed to alienate most anyone who is not non-Hispanic white from the Republican cause. Perhaps Paul Ryan and others see the long game, and the need to sacrifice this election.
What explains Trump’s popularity (beyond just obvious bigots, because there are a lot more people than that supporting him)? As has been much discussed in the media, it is the same anger fueling Bernie Sanders’ movement on the other side. People fed up with comfortable establishment figures who maintain their power while things seem to be getting more unstable and out of control internationally, and at least stagnating domestically. People want change. But The Bern’s socialism and Trump’s demagoguery and narcissism are not the answers.
Trump has tapped into a fear and frustration that has been there for awhile amongst working class whites. Which is one reason he still could win this thing. Frankly, there are quite a few northern, working class whites who normally vote Democrat who are flocking to Trump (what we called in the 80’s “Reagan Democrats.”) Can they make up for the Never Trump Republicans? Maybe. Add to that Hillary is a very weak and vulnerable candidate who has serious issues of her own.
I can’t support Trump for several reasons. His wall and his plan to round up millions of illegal immigrants and send them back are absurd (but “the good ones” can come right back. How does he know who is “good”? Will he interview them all personally? Can you just see the Gestapo-like images of people being rounded up, separated from family members and shipped back to foreign lands?) So what is his point? Is he just that cynical, stirring up nativist sentiments, knowing he can’t really deliver? Or does he really think he can do these things? Either way, it is ridiculous and dangerous.
Even worse is his foreign policy. He casually talks of dismantling NATO, of promoting nuclear proliferation in Asia…he discusses reversing American foreign policy that has been in place since the end World War II with as much thought as you or I would dedicate to ordering take-out. I swear, it looks like he says these things the moment they pop into his head. His Middle Eastern policy? Which Trump do you believe? We should pull out and let them fight out their own problems? Give the Russians a free hand to do with Syria what they see fit? Go carpet-bomb ISIS into oblivion? It seems to change with each week that passes. Again, whatever pops into his head at the moment. One thing that he said is true. The U.S. would be “unpredictable” under a Trump administration. The problem with that is that for close to a century, global stability has depended on a predictable American foreign policy. Our allies depend on it, and our enemies are kept in check by it. Trump: “I’ll make great deals.” Meaning everything is now negotiable? The majority of conservative foreign policy experts agree that Trump’s foreign policy would be a disaster. Not everyone has such dire feelings about it, though. Vladimir Putin is a noted Trump fan.
So no, I can’t vote for the Donald. Country over party. And actually, not voting for Donald, in the long run, is probably best for the party too. Perhaps the Republicans will need to go into the wilderness for awhile and reinvent themselves. Like after The New Deal, and it required a Barry Goldwater to plant the seeds that only came to fruition 15 years later with Reagan (or as I describe him to my students,
“Goldwater with a personality”). It might take more years of horrendous policies like Obama’s to finally convince Americans that another way is necessary. But it is not Trump’s way.
There are just not enough of us out there right now. Reasonable, thoughtful, Libertarian-leaning conservatives who are concerned about the deficit and debt and fiscal future of this country. Who recognize that the American character and work ethic is worth preserving, at least the best aspects of it. Who understand that America has a leadership role to play in the world that needs to be predictable and steadfast for our allies (which Trump doesn’t seem to understand), and that also must project strength and be able to strike a certain fear in the hearts of those who would oppose us or try to do the world harm (Obama doesn’t seem to understand, or at least agree with, this part). Reasonable conservatives who understand that we need to cut government spending, reform entitlements (including the difficult ones like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), but also that not all taxes are automatically bad. Republican icon Ronald Reagan understood this. He once said that if you get 80% of what you want, then that is a success. He understood that you had to work with the opposition, that it did no good to demonize your domestic political opponents.
We have ourselves (on the Right) to blame for Trump. It started with talk radio, I think. I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio on my drives to and from work. And I agree with much of what they say. Many critics of the genre haven’t actually listened to much of it, and it provided an outlet for a point of view that had been blocked out of the mainstream media. But they hold on to and expand their listenership through demonizing the Left, there is no doubt. Most every issue that comes up is proof that Obama and others are out to destroy America. Not that they have different opinions on solutions, but that they just hate America. Ratings equal stirring up anger and resentment. Some are more reasonable than others (I loved Bill Bennett when he was on, I enjoy and respect Dennis Prager and Michael Medved quite a bit, not coincidently two who have come out and said that Trump is wrong for this country), but then you also have the Michael Savage’s of the airwaves. It is an industry built on resentment and intransience, on the belief that if you compromise with the Left then you are a traitor. Reagan, in this environment, would have been excoriated. Talk radio created the Tea Party. Tea Party resentment paved the way for Trump.
The funny thing is, Trump is not even a conservative. And he will actually run to the left of Hillary on some issues. But this pitchfork and torches contingent of the Right is so angry and emboldened now, they don’t even notice that Trump is a carnival barker opportunist who will bend and change with the populist tides and his own whim on any given day. Add to that the Reagan Democrats that he has courted. Trump has no core ideology at all.
So, what to do? Hillary is not a good candidate, nor an honest leader. I think at heart Hillary is pretty moderate. Bernie has pushed her left. Can she tack back center once the children (Bernie supporters) are put to bed and the adults in the Democrat household take control again? I don’t know. But she is not dangerous like Trump is. At least not in the same way he is. I could see Trump doing damage that will be much harder to repair than Hillary. I either vote for her or I don’t vote, I guess. Or cast a 3rd party protest vote if the Never Trump crowd can get something together.
Ryan/Rubio ’20.
16 comments:
I have held off from writing about Trump; his whole existence--to say nothing of his popularity--dismays me so profoundly that I'd prefer to just try and pretend he isn't real. But he is, of course. Very very real. LIke syphilis.
I am just hoping and praying that the polls are accurate and the conventional wisdom--that he's going to get crushed by Hilary--is accurate. On one hand it's impossible for me to imagine him being president. On the other hand, I candidly admit that I was 100% certain he would never be the nominee. I'll tell you one thing--if he actually has a shot at winning come September, say, I will give money to Hilary's campaign. I've never given money to a presidential campaign before, but I'll give to her. Hell, I'll join the campaign if I think it helps. Trump cannot be president. Leaving aside how unqualified and unprepared he is, can you imagine the damage he'll do to us internationally? Do we really want to have Trump going to talk to leaders of the rest of the world? It's unthinkable.
This is a good post, though, Dez.
Great post Dez.
You can also lay the roots of Trump with Fox News as well. They also thrive on the same tactics as talk radio(especially Sean "I pine for traditional 1950s values" Hannity, and Bill O'Reily, and the awful morning hosts of Fox & Friends; and scaremoneger Glenn Beck). Add to the fact that many of the anchors on the channel seem to be all in for Trump (i.e. Hannity), but thankfully not all (i.e. God bless Megan Kelly for standing up against Trump's awful remarks).
Good points all around. Might just support Gary Johnson for president since he is more libertarian than Rand Paul (who I liked, but now support the Donald).
My dream would have been presidential ticket is Goldwater/Regan. That would have been a perfect ticket because both were more libertarian than the current GOP candidates. I mean Goldwater advocated for gays in the military back in the 1960s and Regan risked his political career by opposing a bill that would have barred LGBT+ people from teaching. Plus Goldwater had a good stance on abortion and women's rights and drugs, yet his only downside was voting against the Civil Rights Act (which he regretted later on) on basis of freedom of association, not (according to the Left that he was racist). That event unfortunately brought on all the bigots in the Democrats at the time into the GOP to corrupt it. Would love to know your thoughts on Goldwater as a whole Dez and if he could have been a good president had he won.
Good post overall Dez!
Tyler Crock
Thanks for your comments. Tyler, I am a big admirer of Barry Goldwater. I don't agree with him on every single issue, but he had sound reasoning, and had rock solid principles. Have you ever read Goldwater's 'The Conscience of a Conservative'? That had a profound effect on me politically.
The new edition of the book I got has an excellent introduction written by Robert Kennedy, Jr of all people. What he writes is what I was talking about with Reagan. He says that JFK and RFK, even though they were opposite Goldwater on almost every issue, still had profound respect for him and liked him. And he liked them. On Goldwater's opposition to civil rights, it was NOT on racial grounds. RFK Jr notes in that intro that Martin Luther King even acknowledged that Goldwater was no racist and understood the philosophical grounds upon which Goldwater opposed the Act of 1964, for example.
I still think his opposition was a mistake, but I understand his reasoning.
I teach Goldwater quite extensively in my AP US History class. To understand Reagan and modern conservativism, you must start with Goldwater and that book. As a president? I don't know. He might have been too attached to his principles to be an effective president. He would have despised Trump, I would think.
Thanks for responding Dez. I agree with you on Goldwater. I also agree that he should not have voted against the Civil Rights act. What I was trying to convey was that because he voted against it, it made the Southern Democrats like Thurmond and Helms switch to the GOP which hurt it and that I believe is one of the reasons the GOP is in the state it is in today.
Also if the GOP wants to be relevant it must drop the evangelicals and stop attacking same sex marriage, trans individuals, and LGBT+ orientation. And be less harsh on abortion.
Also want to see if you agree if Fox News also played a factor in Trump's rise.
I agree. You point out a truth that many people do not know or acknowledge. The most virulent racists during the Jim Crow era were Southern Democrats, not Republicans.
And yeah, Fox News played a similar role as a described for talk radio. But Fox is no worse than MSNBC on the other side.
Dez I have to wonder who is the worst conservatives talk radio guy and Fox News host. My picks are Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, the hosts of Fox and Friends, and Bill O'Reily. On the opposite side I select Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews. Your picks Dez?
On radio, Michael Savage is way over the top, although he was taken off where I am. Mike Gallagher irritates me quite a bit. Hannity. I hate Maddow and Olbermann. Chris Matthews does bother me as much.
I meant doesn't bother me as much.
Maddow is smug but she doesn't play on fear or demonize the other side; her thing is more bemused mockery. I can handle that--she's a picnic compared to Hannity or O'Reilley. Olbermann is terrible, though. No question.
The idea that Hispanics are a natural constituency for the Republican party has been promoted for years, but there is simply no evidence to support it. GW never marshaled more than 35-40% support among Hispanics in Texas, and I take this to be an absolute ceiling. Unlimited immigration will be the death knell for traditional conservatism; it's odd that Ryan doesn't see this. What I think we are seeing happen is what happens in every country with a non-homogenous population: people vote their racial identity. The Republican party is turning into the White party. Trump seems to understand this in a way that few if any paid political analysts do. Identitarian politics, it turns out, are much more important to Republican voters than tax cuts and a muscular foreign policy. Trump is personally loathsome, but even if he is defeated, Trumpism is here to stay.
I also can't understand the theory that Fox News created Trump. Trumpism (tariffs, a border wall, no cuts to Medicare/Social Security) is opposed to everything Rupert Murdoch represents. Trump is loathed by almost everyone at Fox, and the network has long given the cold shoulder to immigration restrictionists (Mickey Kaus is excellent on this).
Saxo, why are bringing up actual issues and positions when discussing Trumpism? I'm saying that talk radio/Fox News created the environment for angry populism on the Republican side. Actual policy positions for Trump are fluid. It is the anger that matters. It is the fuel.
In discussing the Hispanic/Republican issues, you give evidence for the party being unsuccessful in the effort, but not why they couldn't fit together nicely. Living where I live and working where I work, I have come to know Hispanic culture quite well (at least the Mexican American variety). I say they should fit because of the inherent social conservativism of Hispanics, as well as a strong entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic. That fits more with Republican ideals than liberal ones. I feel the right messages, messengers and some movement on a few issues and the Republican party could gain a sizeable Hispanic vote. Trump has fone untold damage to that effort.
Here is my current prediction: Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. It is funny that for months talk has been of violence and chaos at the Republican convention, but now you has as much chance of the Democratic convention unravelling. Hell, both could be chaos. Fascinating.
Polls consistently show Hispanics are in favor of more government spending, nor is there any majority Hispanic country while conservative, small-government principles are a reality.
where, not while. Anyway, the idea that Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency has been party orthodoxy for years, but there has never been any evidence other than the anecdotal sort to support this.
Post a Comment