Are We Sure the Nomination Is Now Clear?
Picture it: It's July, and Republicans are gathering in Cleveland. The polls still look more like the most recent CNN one -- Hillary ahead by 13 -- than the most recent Rasmussen one -- Trump ahead by 2. Trump remains the same man he's been all along -- speaking off-the-cuff and contradicting himself, offering conspiracy theories, casually suggesting he might use nuclear weapons here and there, rambling about celebrities, and still jabbing at "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco" even though the primary is done. Supporters fight with protesters at Trump rallies, week after week. Every Republican lawmaker is hiding from the press, as they're constantly being asked if they stand by the nominee's latest controversial comment. GOP hopes of holding the Senate look doomed; they know they will lose House seats, the question is whether it will be enough to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker again. The Republican party peers at the abyss ahead. Do the delegates still nominate Trump? The End of Authentic Pro-Life Republican Presidential Candidates I always get nervous disagreeing with Ramesh, but I've been thinking about this argument: Social conservatives can't trust Trump to stick with them: But that's just a difference of degree between Trump and other Republican politicians of the last few decades. They know that Trump does not consider their issues a high priority: But that has pretty much been the norm among Republican politicians over the years. And he hasn't been their top candidate in the primaries: But that, too, has ample precedent in recent races. Evangelical Christians (an imperfect proxy for social conservatives, but the best one for which we have exit-poll data) generally favored Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney in 2012. The fact that Trump is not Alan Keyes does not reflect any weakening of social-conservative power within the GOP. Is this really the case? Isn't it more accurate to say Donald Trump is pretending to be pro-life, and most of the pro-lifers in the party are pretending they believe him? If all it takes for a Republican presidential candidate to be considered pro-life enough is to just say, "I'm very pro-life, I'm very strong on that," the way Trump does, then in coming years, that's all any Republican with presidential ambitions is going to do. There's no need to be a pro-life crusader, sponsor or sign any controversial legislation, or take any of the tough votes. Just say you are, and that's enough for Republican primary voters. Day by day, we see more and more Republican lawmakers who describe themselves as staunchly pro-life sign on and endorse Trump, who in the past described himself as "very pro-choice," who currently insists he would keep funding for Planned Parenthood for the good parts, refused to answer a question about whether he was ever involved with someone having an abortion, and is saying he wants to change the Republican-party platform to specify the exceptions to abortion restrictions. Forget his comments from years back. Back in April, Trump said: Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed . . . At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." Considering the current status of the law, how does that perspective make him a foe of abortion? (Someone will shout, "But Jim, his campaign later issued a clarifying statement which said he would 'change the law through his judicial appointments.' Call me crazy, but if Trump doesn't think of that when he's asked about abortion, a few days after his "punish the women" comments, I just don't think that Trump thinks about abortion all that much, and it would be near the bottom of his priority list.) Looking at this more broadly, many self-identified Evangelical Christian Republicans chose to support the previously pro-choice, thrice-married casino and strip-club owner who bragged of his affairs with married women, kissed Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag, defends Planned Parenthood, and says he's never asked for God's forgiveness. Jerry Falwell Jr. endorsed him. A significant number of Americans think that Christians are hypocrites. (Many of us are, if you define that as not always living up to our own values and morals, or being more concerned about the mote in the other guy's eye, instead of the beam in our own.) But when these skeptics see self-described Evangelical Christians signing on to support a guy who's appeared on the cover of Playboy and lived a Bacchanalian lifestyle, it affirms their suspicion that Christians don't mean what they say. It's all a pose. They'll use these standards and expectations to denounce other people, but waive them for their leaders. If Christians don't expect their own political leaders to live up to their standards for a moral lifestyle, why should anyone else be expected to live up to it? Finally, considering Trump's personal history with women, bragging of affairs with married women and such . . . is this the end of Republican sex scandals? If Republicans are fine with nominating a man with Trump's behavior in this realm, why would any other candidate for any other office be held to a different standard? Can Jack Ryan come back? We Don't Oppose a Thuggish Left in Order to Establish a Thuggish Alt-Right This, from Ace over at Ace of Spades, is beautiful, and I hope he'll forgive me for excerpting such a long excerpt. Click over and make sure he gets some traffic for writing something so succinct and to the point about why this political moment feels so disturbing: The usual math on this is that a third party run would be disastrous and would deliver the election to Hillary. Many #NeverTrumpers, and I'm edging into that group myself, find this a weak objection in this case: Trump himself will inevitably be demolished, so there's no threat of "throwing the election." It already has been thrown. Second, Trump represents a very stupid and dangerous form of authoritarianism. Everything with him is force and bullying. Riots at the convention if he doesn't get his way. His online trolls actively threatening people's physical safety. I don't get it -- I'm supposed to be outraged by Lois Lerner, yet amused by this? Why? Because this will only be visited upon my enemies? First, that's not principled, that's just stupid tribalism,, and second, it's not true -- the gentle persuasions of authoritarian You Will Be Made to Buckle are already being visited on us, and by "us," I mean non-Democrats. I personally didn't oppose the thuggishness of the left just to be bullied by a new thuggishness of the alt-right. Some alt-righter (I imagine) drifted in to the comments -- a n00b -- to say "Wow this site is really spineless." No, this site is showing spine -- by resisting your attempts to bend spines for Trump. Apparently "courage" is now defined, alt-rightishly, as buckling to the right set of pressures and bullyings. . . . Many of Trump's supporters are authoritarians -- not all, mind you, some just want the wall, or to "teach DC a lesson" -- but many are thrilled by the Second Look at Authoritarianism Trump promises. The left has similarly become thrilled and dizzy at the idea of just forcing people to knuckle under. You can see how intoxicating a drug this is in the obesely fat and stupid TrigglyPuff's rantings and pendulations. The power to force people to do what you want them to do is a powerful elixir, especially for people who feel no power over others in their own lives, or even over their own lives. And this is what I most resist in leftist politics -- not the minimum wage per se, but the notion that the government can and should dictate to people what arrangements they make in private employment. Not free birth control per se, but the repulsive idea that the government will force people to buy birth control for others -- even if that is against their own private covenants with the Lord God. About seven months ago I noticed, and said on the blog: Trump never talks about limiting the power of government, or freedom. Never. He's Government Action Man-- the government can do and do and do for "the people." That's not some minor ideological complaint. That's not some esoteric bit of political dogma. I don't want any masters in my life. One could argue, I think accurately, that "success" in society is largely dictated by how few masters and overlords you have weighing down your freedom of action. That's why money is so closely linked to success -- the more money, the more F.U. money, the fewer masters and overlords. But money is just a tool by which we purchase freedom of action and freedom from interference. I'm very reluctant to vote affirmatively for a new tax on my myself -- a new tax on my freedom. Bingo. The Republican party is shifting from an institution ostensibly devoted to liming government power over citizens to one that is fine with expanding it as long as it's focused in the right direction. ADDENDA: No pop culture podcast this week, our producer is traveling. Check out the archives here. On the home page, an examination at the increasingly widespread accusation that every loss -- from the economy, to the primaries, to the NBA finals -- is "rigged."  | 
Comments
Post a Comment