AGAINST TRUMP
Well, here you go. If you wanted to know what kind of conservative could possibly stand against Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, the editors of National Review gathered a couple of names you might know to offer their thoughts . . . Names like economist Thomas Sowell, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III, TheBlaze founder Glenn Beck, former U.S. attorneys general Edwin Meese III and Michael B. Mukasey, syndicated radio hosts Dana Loesch and Michael Medved, syndicated columnists Cal Thomas and Mona Charen, The Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, First Things editor R. R. Reno, Commentary editor John Podhoretz, National Affairs editor Yuval Levin, novelist Mark Helprin, National Review contributing editor Andrew C. McCarthy, The Resurgent founder Erick Erickson, Club for Growth president David M. McIntosh, author and presidential scholar Steven F. Hayward, The Federalist publisher Ben Domenech, Cato Institute executive vice president David Boaz, Townhall.com editor Katie Pavlich, and Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention. You'll want to read all their arguments. I was struck by Bozell's opening point: "Longtime conservative leader Richard Viguerie has a simple test for credentialing a conservative: Does he walk with us?" When did that become such unimportant criteria? When did some of us accept that somebody who's been agreeing with us for a few years at most – and, not that long ago, was eagerly embracing, touting, and often donating to the diametric opposite of our ideas, values, and agenda -- should be our first choice? Over a bunch of other options who did walk with us? From the editorial, "Against Trump": As for illegal immigration, Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government. Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty (and a version of a similarly idiotic idea that appeared in one of Washington's periodic "comprehensive" immigration reforms). This plan wouldn't survive its first contact with reality. Trump nevertheless offers a valuable warning for the Republican party. If responsible men irresponsibly ignore an issue as important as immigration, it will be taken up by the reckless. If they cannot explain their Beltway maneuvers -- worse, if their maneuvering is indefensible -- they will be rejected by their own voters. If they cannot advance a compelling working-class agenda, the legitimate anxieties and discontents of blue-collar voters will be exploited by demagogues. We sympathize with many of the complaints of Trump supporters about the GOP, but that doesn't make the mogul any less flawed a vessel for them. Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself. 
I'm already getting the critical and usually vulgar e-mail and Tweets from Nordic mythology enthusiasts that you can imagine. Others suggest it won't persuade the Trump supporters -- many of whom have demonstrated they're intractable. At a time like this, you call 'em as you see 'em, and let the chips fall where they may. Stand true to what you believe. Hey, Look Who's No Longer Co-Sponsoring a Debate This Year! Let Jack Fowler explain: National Review was asked by the RNC to partner in the GOP debates. We agreed. Our initial partner was NBC, with whom we were to help moderate the pre–Super Tuesday debate, originally to be held on February 26 in Houston, then suspended by the RNC in retribution over the antics of CNBC moderators in its now infamous debate last month. A new main host was picked this week — CNN. National Review was to partner, along with Salem Radio and Telemundo, the debate rescheduled for February 25. Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our "Against Trump" editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald. Alight, Reince. That's your call. Representative Pete King: 'I Don't See Malice in Trump like I see with Cruz.' For everybody shouting this is now an establishment newsletter . . . I'd argue that in Washington's coming blizzard of the century, when we're all reduced to cannibalism, we eat the establishment first: This week, the New York Times quoted another major Republican figure -- former Senate majority leader and presidential nominee Robert J. Dole -- as saying he would prefer Trump to Cruz. "Nobody likes him," Dole said of Cruz, adding that the senator would bring on a "cataclysmic" loss as the GOP's nominee. Many have decided that Trump -- for all his faults -- is better. For one thing, many Republicans in Congress especially despise Cruz, who has a history of picking long-shot fights and blaming other Republicans when he is unsuccessful. Beyond that personal hostility, there's a political calculation. If Cruz is nominated, they say, he could alienate swing voters with his brand of scorched-earth conservatism. If he's elected, they fear, Cruz would shut Republican moderates out of power. "Between Trump and Cruz, it's not even close," said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a longtime House moderate who has not endorsed a candidate. "Cruz isn't a good guy, and he'd be impossible as president. People don't trust him. And regardless of what your concern is with Trump, he's pragmatic enough to get something done. I also don't see malice in Trump like I see with Cruz." No, really, some are telling reporters the prefer losing with Trump to winning with Cruz: Of course, this willingness to accommodate Mr. Trump is driven in part by the fact that few among the Republican professional class believe he would win a general election. In their minds, it would be better to effectively rent the party to Mr. Trump for four months this fall, through the general election, than risk turning it over to Mr. Cruz for at least four years, as either the president or the next-in-line leader for the 2020 nomination. When I see sentiments like that, I'm thinking, "Why wait for the blizzard?" The establishment looks at Trump and sees a completely different man than I do -- agreeable, conciliatory, eager to take advice: If Mr. Cruz were the party's nominee, said Charles R. Black Jr., a lobbyist who has worked on numerous Republican presidential campaigns, "what would happen is a lot of the elected leaders and party elders would try to sit down and try to help Cruz run a better campaign, but he may not listen. Trump is another matter." "You can coach Donald," Mr. Black said. "If he got nominated, he'd be scared to death. That's the point he would call people in the party and say, 'I just want to talk to you.' " Am I awake? ADDENDA: On the pop-culture podcast, Mickey and I prepare for the latest Winter Storm Panic. Chik-fil-A is now offering kale and McDonalds is putting chocolate sauce on fries, suggesting that somehow Ronald McDonald is pregnant. Service may be dead in America, and the televised Oscars may be getting ready to join them. (You can't choose to nominate and award niche films and then hope for a mass television audience, fellas.) Mickey travels the world through Planet Prime Time and tries to explain just why it Miley and Liam is the most consequential reunion since East and West Germany. Aleister adjusts Bernie Sanders's new commercial to feature a more appropriate soundtrack . . . I might have gone with the theme to "The Hunt for Red October" . . . | 
Comments
Post a Comment