Republican Split

I listen to all of these foolish (stupid!) people, often living in a bygone era, like the weak and frail RINO, Peggy Noonan, who did much less for Ronald Reagan than she claims, and who actually said bad things about him and his ability to speak, or Rich Lowry, who has destroyed the once wonderful and influential National Review, the pride and joy of the legendary William F. Buckley, or George Will, whose mind is decaying with hatred and envy before our very eyes, or Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, two people who are finally out of the conversation and of no relevance whatsoever.

Donald Trump

This is sad but also true.  I followed each of these people for years, agreeing with them on most topics.  Now, they prefer the Democrats to the current Republican party.

I first read Peggy Noonan in the mid-90s when I was subscribed to the Wall Street Journal.  She is one of the best writers I have ever read.  I don't know how she does it, but there is a quality to her writing that imbues her words with great importance and significance.  There is a reason she was a great speechwriter and remains an excellent columnist.  Her opposition to Trump was more about personality than policy.  She even called for his censure in the wake of the Mueller Report.  It is now widely-accepted that the whole Russian Collusion story was nothing but a Democratic dirty trick with no basis in reality.

I was a huge fan of George Will from the early 1990s (when I was a regular watcher of This Week with David Brinkley) until the Trump Presidency.  If I didn't know what to think on a topic, George was usually a key source for me.  I never cared for his columns on Baseball, but he was otherwise the conservative's conservative.  When Trump became president, Will absolutely hated the man.  Trump was implementing more conservative policies than anyone since Reagan and Will was still furious.  Originalist judges?  Check.  Tax cuts?  Check.  Strong defense?  Check.  Muscular foreign policy?  Check.  Rollback of regulations?  Check.  Economic growth?  Check.  Fiscal responsibility?  No.  So much of what Trump accomplished was exactly what I had been reading from George Will for a quarter of a century and yet he hated the man so much as to leave the Republican party.  I still don't get it.

Jonah Goldberg was my favorite stand-in for Charles Krauthammer on Special Report.  He and I are about the same age, and it was nice to follow a pundit from my generation.  As with Will, he wrote and spoke about conservative policies while dismantling the Democrat plans.  As with Will, I almost always agreed with Jonah.  After Trump was elected, suddenly I find Jonah to be a constant scold to all things Trump and I'm often at odds with him.

Hayes and Lowry never really appealed to me though I've read a lot from each or seen them on Fox shows.  I had been a National Review subscriber and used to read online articles at NRO.  That the two of them also became anti-Trump was less of a disappointment than the three above.  Mostly, Will and Goldberg were the big letdowns.

During the Trump Presidency, I was often baffled what it was that I wasn't seeing.  How can these pundits who I have followed for years suddenly be on the opposite side from me when we were in concert for so long?  What am I missing?  With Noonan and Will, it seemed to be Trump's style rather than his policy.  He was inarguably a jerk, a loudmouth, an arrogant blusterer who was prone to hyperbole.  Indeed, I often had trouble watching one of his speeches.  However, his policies were closer to the conservative ideal than anyone since Reagan.  Was it really about personality?  That seems so shallow.

The other theory is that he was an outsider while all five of them are longtime insiders.  That would mean that the pundit class is just kabuki theater meant to keep the rubes in flyover country lulled by the idea that there is a give and take in the capitol, rather than a constant increase in insider wellbeing at the expense of outsider wellbeing.  That's kind of dystopian.

Conservatives Against Trump

Max Boot - a long time Republican - has a piece in the Washington Post where he calls for the destruction of the Republican Party.  Comparing it to Germany and Japan in the wake of World War II, he says it must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.  Gee, that's not just a little hyperbolic.

The straw that broke the camel's back is the separation of children from parents on the border.  Of course, the separation 'policy' dates back to the 90s and has been reconfirmed over the last 20 years.  This has been happening for years but a picture (taken during the Obama Administration!) was published with kids in cages and suddenly this blew sky high.  Boot should know this.  In fact, he probably does but this makes a good pretext for his continuing Trump hatred.  Basically, it boils down to criminals go to jail and their kids are put in protective services.  Should kids go to jail with their parents?  No.  Just like Americans, if you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't commit a crime that puts you in jail.  Duh!

 

I've long liked Max Boot - I own a couple of his books (Out of Order & War Made New) and definitely recommend them.  However, like George Will, he has somehow lost his way.  I don't know quite what it is about Trump that has driven so many staunch conservatives to support the increasingly socialist Democratic Party (e.g. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).  Not resting his argument just on the child separation issue, Boot offers other reasons to vote Democrat:

"...a vote for the GOP in November is also a vote for egregious obstruction of justice

 

No example is provided; you just need to take his word on it.

 

...rampant conflicts of interest

 

No example is provided; you just need to take his word on it.

 

...the demonization of minorities

 

Trump has been hard on illegal immigration and that is often equated with anti-Hispanic because the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Latin America.  Trump did indeed speak ill of MS-13 gang members, who deserve demonization.  Boot is embracing the Democrats tactic of conflating Trump's comments against MS-13 to all immigrants.

 

...the debasement of political discourse

 

Really?  How many times did Democrats accuse Republicans of being Nazis and racists?  Yes, Republicans have usually refrained from such talk even when Democrats accused them of being fascists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, etc.  I had a family member intimate that I might be racist because I opposed Obama.  Clearly, if Obama had been white, I would have been in favor of higher taxes, more regulation, and weak foreign policy.  The political discourse was debased decades ago but Trump is the first Republican President to punch back twice as hard.  Trump adopted the tactics of Democrats and none of the Washington Elite is going to forgive him for that.

 

...the alienation of America’s allies

 

Do you remember how Obama abandoned ally (Mubarak in Egypt) after ally (Poland & Czech Republic) after ally (Israel was always at fault and the Palestinians were blameless for 8 years) and tried to embrace enemy (Iran) after enemy (Russian Reset) after enemy (Cuba!), all to no avail?  Trump is trying to get NATO to pay their treaty obligations in defense; if that alienates them, they deserve it.  While Obama tossed allies overboard to the sharks, Trump insists allies do their part in swabbing the deck.

 

...the end of free trade

 

There is no free trade.  The US has trade deficits with most trade partners.  While the US moves toward free trade, our trade partners game the system to create a trade imbalance in their favor.  Trade with China is $375 billion in their favor, Mexico is $71 billion, Japan is $69 billion, Germany is $65 billion, and Canada is $18 billion.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.  The US is paying and if each of these deficits were cut in half, those nations would still be getting the better of the deal.  Trump is going to use his leverage (cf. The Art of the Deal).

 

...and the appeasement of dictators.

 

And you think the Democrats are the way to fix that?  The party that sided with the mullahs in Iran's 2009 Green Revolution and then gave billions in cash to the mullahs in the wake of the unenforceable and counter-productive Iran Deal?  The party that canceled a missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Russia?   The party that favored Hamas and the Fatah over Israel?

 

Like Will, Boot is a longtime insider who sees an outsider upsetting the apple cart.  Trump is like no president before.  Unlike most previous presidents, he has worked and thrived in the private sector.  The private sector will not long suffer detrimental policies and money-losing propositions.  If we are in deficit on trade, let's renegotiate.  If allies aren't paying their share (i.e. NATO dues), let's send a collector.  If regulations are choking economic growth, let's repeal them.  If conservatism is about limiting government, we haven't had it this good since Reagan.

 

If you think the boat is going the wrong direction, you try to correct course, you don't jump off the boat and yell "I hope you sink!"  This is what Will, Boot, and other Never Trumpers have done.

Cognitive Dissonance of George Will

Yet again, George Will has praised something that is only possible because Donald Trump is President.  In his latest article, he discusses how the Supreme Court has corrected an error it made 41 years ago when it ruled that non-union members could be coerced into paying agency fees since they benefit from the union's collective bargaining.  His tone indicates that this was a correction that was inevitable, much like Plessy vs. Ferguson (i.e. separate but equal).  However, the ruling was 5 to 4.  Huh.  Who were the five and who were the four?  Well, the 5 were justices appointed by Reagan (Kennedy), Bush I (Thomas), Bush II (Roberts and Alito), and Trump (Gorsuch).  The four were appointed by Clinton (Ginsburg and Breyer) and Obama (Sotomayor and Kagan).  What if, instead of Justice Gorsuch, we had an appointee from President Hillary Clinton?  How would this decision have gone in that case?  Almost certainly 5 - 4 in the other direction.

 

Trump is implementing policies more conservative than either George Bush or George W. Bush.  He is pushing issues that the Republican voters have requested for decades but the party has offered nothing but lip service.  Previous presidents have been very good at speaking but not very good at doing.  Trump has this reversed.  Of course, the old adage is to pay attention to what they do and not what they say.

George Will the Democrat

In his latest column, George Will calls on his readers to vote for the Democrats in November.  Less than a month after he heaped praise on Mitch McConnell's recent achievements - made possible because Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, he demands that it be torn down.  Yes, the Zero Tolerance Policy on the border - where the laws are finally being enforced as they were written - is a demonstration of bad government.  Hmm.

 

Though I dislike much of Trump's style, his results have been nothing short of amazing.  Regulations rolled back, conservative justices, tax reductions, economic growth, improved employment numbers, unbelievable shifts in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East.  Jerusalem recognized as capitol of Israel (something the previous 3 presidents said they would do), women can drive in Saudi Arabia, and there may soon by a railway link between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  I have been an avid reader of George Will for years; policies that he has advocated for decades are being enacted and he is furious.

 

It should be noted that Will references a recent incident where Corey Lewandowski - Trump's former campaign manager - dismissively said "Wah, wah," when confronted with a story of a Down syndrome child separated from her parents at the border.  George Will's son has Down syndrome.  Trump may be implementing policies that Will should like but Trump is not at all presidential in the common usage of the term.  Trump is a Washington outsider while George Will has been an insider for most of his life.  If Trump had the demeanor of Romney and was accomplishing these same things, I suspect Will would be far more supportive.  Clash of personalities more than policies.

George Will Puts Humble Pie in the Oven

A recent article by George Will celebrates the long game of Mitch McConnell.  McConnell is now the longest serving Republican Senate Majority Leader, surpassing Bob Dole.  Though many criticize McConnell for being a milquetoast, he is reshaping the judiciary.  Will lists several of McConnell's recent accomplishments:

 

1. Largest tax reduction in 31 years

2. Increased defense spending

3. Repeal of many Dodd-Frank banking rules

4. Drilling allowed in ANWR after 38 years of being blocked

5. Reshaping NLRB, which had been a source of mischief during the Obama years

6. Extensive use of the Congressional Review Act to repeal regulations

 

Wow, Mitch McConnell is really amazing!  However, I notice that all of his great accomplishments seem to have come in the last 16 months.  What changed in the last 16 months that allowed Mitch to play his 'long game' so well?  Oddly, President Trump is not mentioned once in the article.

Will cannot fail to notice that much of his preferred conservative policy has been implemented during the administration of a man he vociferously denounced.  He left the Republican Party because Speaker Ryan endorsed the man who won the party's nomination.  Gee, George, I left the party when George W Bush dramatically expanded government in his first term, abandoning any pretense of conservatism.  Where were you?  If Trump continues to implement conservative policies and nominate conservative judges that allow Mitch to reshape the judiciary (I do love how Will gives McConnell all the credit for approving and ignores Trump's more important role of nominating), Will will take his humble pie out of the oven and eat it.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Trump is catching grief for his refusal to say he would accept the election results.  Democrats are horrified.  Pardon me, but wasn't it Al Gore who did exactly that?  He conceded and then withdrew his concession!  Didn't Stuart Smalley demand a recount until enough 'misplaced' ballots appeared to give him the victory over Norm Coleman?  Did Christine Gregoire accept her loss in the gubernatorial election in Washington?  No, she demanded a recount and still lost.  But on the second recount, she won!  And there were no further recounts.  Was it wrong for John Kerry to claim the 2004 election was rigged in Ohio?  It seems Democrats are more than willing to question the outcome on election night but Trump needs to agree not to do the same or he is un-American.  There are those double standards again.

With the WikiLeaks, it has been revealed that the game was rigged against Bernie Sanders.  The party and the media were in the tank for Hillary.  When this was revealed just prior to the Democratic National Convention, Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign in disgrace.  Further WikiLeaks dumps have shown again and again that the media is completely in favor of Hillary.  FBI documents have demonstrated that the bureau sought to undermine the possibility of prosecuting Hillary for the email scandal by handing out immunity deals at every step of the investigation.  Then we have the Project Veritas sting videos in which Bob Creamer - who has met with President Obama more than 40 times and been to the White House more than 200 times - was caught discussing how to commit voter fraud.  Creamer's associate brags about causing havoc at Trump rallies, confident that the media will broadcast it as a negative for Trump, which it has.  Even George Will, who is adamantly anti-Trump, says that Trump has a point.

 

Like Al Gore, Christine Gregoire, and Al Franken, Trump should not be asked to accept results in advance of seeing how those results were made.  It was a question that should not have been asked.  Really, remember all those Republicans who offered a pledge to support the eventual nominee?  Only Trump refused.  Look at all the support he is getting from those who took the pledge.  There is no honor among politicians.  Don't trust them!

#NeverTrump means President Hillary

Trump is not a conservative.  He is barely a Republican.  It makes total sense that George Will, Bill Kristol, et al. would oppose him on principle, especially through the primaries.  Hey, I far preferred Ted Cruz, someone else whom George Will held in low regard.  The primaries are over and, like it or not, the voters gave Trump the nomination.  So now there is a new choice.  Trump or Hillary?  Amazingly, the #NeverTrump crowd are leaning toward the 'extremely careless' Hillary who clearly misled the public on Benghazi and proved disastrous as Secretary of State.  However, she is part of the establishment, just like them.  Hmmm.

 

Trump has very little support among the Republican establishment and will thus have to fight tooth and nail with constant appeals to the voters to get anything done.  Unless he can wield the bully pulpit like a maestro, he is going to begin his presidency as a lame duck.  Not only will the media and the Democrats oppose him but the Republicans are going to be less than helpful.  All this talk of fascism is nonsense and those spewing it know it is nonsense.  Trump's powerbase is the voters and the establishment of both parties has been ignoring the voters for years, thus the reason Trump won the nomination and Bernie proved challenging.

 

By contrast, Hillary will be the first woman president.  Much as any opposition to Obama has been painted as racism, any opposition to Hillary will be sexism.  It isn't even arguable that this will happen.  The constant calls of racism have been fantastically successful in getting the Republicans to rollover and play dead.  The loyal opposition has been weak at best and Vichy France at worst.  If Hillary is inaugurated, we will hear endless claims of sexism, war on women, old boys' club, patriarchy, and on and on.  Heck, we hear a lot of that now but it will be on steroids with Hillary in the White House.  And the Republicans will continue to rollover as the media cheers her in much the same way they have cheered Obama.

 

With that in mind, if you want less powerful government, which candidate do you choose?  If you believe in checks and balances, separation of powers, and the rule of law, which do you choose?  The answer is obvious.  But if you are part of the establishment and want the good times to keep rolling, to have a third Obama term...  Well, that answer is also obvious.

 

It is very rare that I disagree with George Will but a Hillary Clinton Presidency, which will assure a liberal Supreme Court for decades to come, will be far more harmful than anything Trump can do.  Opposing Trump is as American as apple pie but opposing Hillary proves you are a chauvinist pig!  I want to be able to oppose.