George Will is very concerned about the rise of Trump and rightfully so. There is real, palpable concern over what Trump could do to the Republican party.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428392/donald-trump-2016-nomination-would-be-end-of-gop
Will's concern is slightly different though related-what will Trump do to conservatism. This understandable as Trump is neither a conservative nor does he have any desire to be. This is something Glenn Beck has lamented.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/glenn-beck-begs-for-guidance-on-trumps.html?showComment=1450800585218#c2585625094138012751
Will sees Trump as doing real harm on the Republican party, of course. But he even more worries about what it could mean to conservatism. As he sees it, a Trump nomination would be a repudiation of conservatism by the party that is historic.
He compares the rise of Trump to two previous watershed GOP elections. One of them, 1964, I and many others have referenced often. However, Will also mentions another such election that I haven't thought of but is a very good point-the 1912 election.
"Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence — Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? — Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-conservative-party-jeopardized-by-trump/2015/12/23/3335339c-a8e2-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html
So Trump's embrace of Putin is the last straw. Will now believes that defeating Trump is a more immediate concern for conservatives than defeating Hillary.
"Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic Party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to 12 years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this, the GOP’s third epochal intraparty struggle in 104 years."
"In those two previous such struggles-1912, 1964, conservatism won the war."
"If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal."
"Putin slyly stirred America’s politics by saying Trump is “very . . . talented,” adding that he welcomed Trump’s promise of “closer, deeper relations,” whatever that might mean, with Russia. Trump announced himself flattered to be “so nicely complimented” by a “highly respected” man: “When people call you brilliant, it’s always good.” When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries,” Trump replied that “at least he’s a leader.” Besides, Trump breezily asserted, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” Two days later, Trump, who rarely feigns judiciousness, said: “It has not been proven that he’s killed reporters.”
"George F. Will writes a twice-weekly column on politics and domestic and foreign affairs. He began his column with The Post in 1974, and he received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977. He is also a contributor to FOX News’ daytime and primetime programming."
"Well. Perhaps the 56 journalists murdered were coincidental victims of amazingly random violence that the former KGB operative’s police state is powerless to stop. It has, however, been “proven,” perhaps even to Trump’s exacting standards, that Putin has dismembered Ukraine. (Counts one and two at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned conspiracy to wage, and waging, aggressive war.)"
"Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence — Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? — Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority."
"Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic Party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to 12 years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this, the GOP’s third epochal intraparty struggle in 104 years."
"In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for the Republican nomination on an explicitly progressive platform. Having failed to win the nomination, he ran a third-party campaign against the Republican nominee, President William Howard Taft, and the Democratic nominee, New Jersey Gov. Woodrow Wilson, who that November would become the first person elected president who was deeply critical of the American founding."
"TR shared Wilson’s impatience with the separation of powers, which both men considered an 18th-century relic incompatible with a properly energetic executive. Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, TR favored a passive judiciary deferential to elected legislatures and executives; he also endorsed the powers of popular majorities to overturn judicial decisions and recall all public officials."
Separation of powers-blasphemous stuff to try to overturn that for 'majoritarianism.' I have to say I think there is a case to be made for the British style parliamentary system where there is no 'separation of powers' in the same way. That has not separation of powers but 'fusion of powers' where voters elect the party who then elects the Prime Minister and Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_of_powers
Of course, this idea would positively scandalize Will. I'm currently reading a great book by Garry Wills-all his books are great-where he relates that James Madison, who along with Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist papers, actually had at one point desired to give the President not just a veto of Congress that could not be overrode by Congress but a veto over state laws. So Madison would have shocked George Will as well.
http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-America-Federalist-Garry-Wills/dp/0140298398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451231986&sr=8-1&keywords=garry+wills+explaining+america
Ok, back to George Will. In these previous two epoch making elections of 1912 and 1964, though the GOP got routed both times, when the dust settled, the world was safe again for truth, justice, and conservatism in the Republican party. This time, Will warns, could be different.
"Taft finished third, carrying only Utah and Vermont. But because Taft hewed to conservatism, and was supported by some other leading Republicans (e.g., Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR’s closest friends, and Elihu Root, TR’s secretary of war and then secretary of state), the Republican Party survived as a counterbalance to a progressive Democratic Party."
"In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. Goldwater defeated New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, just as Taft had defeated TR, a former New York governor. Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican Party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party’s continuity as the custodian of conservatism."
"In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would also mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics."
"It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this:"
"One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either."
Dare to dream. This is why I'm a Trump Democrat.
I have argued previously that I think something like this is coming to the GOP-a great schism. Actually, Will is probably too optimistic in thinking that this can be avoided simply by keeping Trump off the ballot. My sense is that Pandora's Box is opened and it can't be closed now.
After this, many in the base won't want to support the Jeb Bushes and Marco Rubios ever again. There will be interest in some sort of Trumpian new party whether or not it gets off the ground. The schism is between the base who are nativist, racist, and populist against an Establishment who has nothing to offer but more supply side libertarian orthodoxy-more tax cuts for the rich and plans to cut or end Medicare and Social Security.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/trump-poll-numbers-success/421824/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428392/donald-trump-2016-nomination-would-be-end-of-gop
Will's concern is slightly different though related-what will Trump do to conservatism. This understandable as Trump is neither a conservative nor does he have any desire to be. This is something Glenn Beck has lamented.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/12/glenn-beck-begs-for-guidance-on-trumps.html?showComment=1450800585218#c2585625094138012751
Will sees Trump as doing real harm on the Republican party, of course. But he even more worries about what it could mean to conservatism. As he sees it, a Trump nomination would be a repudiation of conservatism by the party that is historic.
He compares the rise of Trump to two previous watershed GOP elections. One of them, 1964, I and many others have referenced often. However, Will also mentions another such election that I haven't thought of but is a very good point-the 1912 election.
"Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence — Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? — Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-conservative-party-jeopardized-by-trump/2015/12/23/3335339c-a8e2-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html
So Trump's embrace of Putin is the last straw. Will now believes that defeating Trump is a more immediate concern for conservatives than defeating Hillary.
"Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic Party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to 12 years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this, the GOP’s third epochal intraparty struggle in 104 years."
"In those two previous such struggles-1912, 1964, conservatism won the war."
"If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal."
"Putin slyly stirred America’s politics by saying Trump is “very . . . talented,” adding that he welcomed Trump’s promise of “closer, deeper relations,” whatever that might mean, with Russia. Trump announced himself flattered to be “so nicely complimented” by a “highly respected” man: “When people call you brilliant, it’s always good.” When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries,” Trump replied that “at least he’s a leader.” Besides, Trump breezily asserted, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” Two days later, Trump, who rarely feigns judiciousness, said: “It has not been proven that he’s killed reporters.”
"George F. Will writes a twice-weekly column on politics and domestic and foreign affairs. He began his column with The Post in 1974, and he received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977. He is also a contributor to FOX News’ daytime and primetime programming."
"Well. Perhaps the 56 journalists murdered were coincidental victims of amazingly random violence that the former KGB operative’s police state is powerless to stop. It has, however, been “proven,” perhaps even to Trump’s exacting standards, that Putin has dismembered Ukraine. (Counts one and two at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned conspiracy to wage, and waging, aggressive war.)"
"Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence — Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? — Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority."
"Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic Party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to 12 years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this, the GOP’s third epochal intraparty struggle in 104 years."
"In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for the Republican nomination on an explicitly progressive platform. Having failed to win the nomination, he ran a third-party campaign against the Republican nominee, President William Howard Taft, and the Democratic nominee, New Jersey Gov. Woodrow Wilson, who that November would become the first person elected president who was deeply critical of the American founding."
"TR shared Wilson’s impatience with the separation of powers, which both men considered an 18th-century relic incompatible with a properly energetic executive. Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, TR favored a passive judiciary deferential to elected legislatures and executives; he also endorsed the powers of popular majorities to overturn judicial decisions and recall all public officials."
Separation of powers-blasphemous stuff to try to overturn that for 'majoritarianism.' I have to say I think there is a case to be made for the British style parliamentary system where there is no 'separation of powers' in the same way. That has not separation of powers but 'fusion of powers' where voters elect the party who then elects the Prime Minister and Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_of_powers
Of course, this idea would positively scandalize Will. I'm currently reading a great book by Garry Wills-all his books are great-where he relates that James Madison, who along with Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist papers, actually had at one point desired to give the President not just a veto of Congress that could not be overrode by Congress but a veto over state laws. So Madison would have shocked George Will as well.
http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-America-Federalist-Garry-Wills/dp/0140298398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451231986&sr=8-1&keywords=garry+wills+explaining+america
Ok, back to George Will. In these previous two epoch making elections of 1912 and 1964, though the GOP got routed both times, when the dust settled, the world was safe again for truth, justice, and conservatism in the Republican party. This time, Will warns, could be different.
"Taft finished third, carrying only Utah and Vermont. But because Taft hewed to conservatism, and was supported by some other leading Republicans (e.g., Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR’s closest friends, and Elihu Root, TR’s secretary of war and then secretary of state), the Republican Party survived as a counterbalance to a progressive Democratic Party."
"In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. Goldwater defeated New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, just as Taft had defeated TR, a former New York governor. Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican Party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party’s continuity as the custodian of conservatism."
"In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would also mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics."
"It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this:"
"One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either."
Dare to dream. This is why I'm a Trump Democrat.
I have argued previously that I think something like this is coming to the GOP-a great schism. Actually, Will is probably too optimistic in thinking that this can be avoided simply by keeping Trump off the ballot. My sense is that Pandora's Box is opened and it can't be closed now.
After this, many in the base won't want to support the Jeb Bushes and Marco Rubios ever again. There will be interest in some sort of Trumpian new party whether or not it gets off the ground. The schism is between the base who are nativist, racist, and populist against an Establishment who has nothing to offer but more supply side libertarian orthodoxy-more tax cuts for the rich and plans to cut or end Medicare and Social Security.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/trump-poll-numbers-success/421824/
No comments:
Post a Comment