Donald Trump's forays into the political arena have already had a positive effect on the conservative movement.
If establishment Republicans have their way, the history of 1995 and 1996 will repeat itself, which portends that despite their enormous mid-term gains, Barack Obama will be reelected in 2012. While this is an appalling possibility to the mainstream of the country, those at the innermost circles of Republican hierarchy nevertheless seem determined to deny the American people a real alternative to the acceleration of government bloat and encroaching socialism from the political Left. Thus they give credibility to the abhorrent and extra-constitutional actions of the Democrats and Obama since his inauguration.
The people of the Heartland made it inarguably clear last November that they want no part of Obama's "hope and change" bilge water. Yet this message has somehow failed to penetrate those politicians ostensibly on the Right who, had they been predisposed towards courage and leadership, could now wield it like a mace against the liberal Democrats. Instead Democrats have renewed vigor and are enjoying unwarranted success at forcing compromise and capitulation from the GOP. And with each Republican effort to avoid political impasse, chances for Obama and his Democrat minions improve for next year.
Throughout all of this, "business as usual" Republicans are again proving to be Obama's biggest allies. Perpetually living in fear of scorn and ridicule from the "mainstream" media, they squander their political capital in a futile effort to stay in the good graces of the so-called political "center" (as it has been defined by the Left) while flippantly disparaging or trivializing the conservative base.
So it should surprise no one that, amidst a current field of prospective Republican presidential hopefuls who promise little more than a continuance of the insipid "moderation" of George W. Bush, the mere possibility of Donald Trump entering the race is sending shock waves that reverberate on a tectonic scale. After all, Bush's rejection of real conservatism was what ultimately brought us Obama. Now America genuinely and desperately seeks real change before it is too late.
It is inarguable that Trump's past "conservative" credentials are less than sterling. Few if any ever considered him an icon of the Republican philosophy prior to his recent dalliances with presidential politicking. Nevertheless his appeal is broad and growing. And despite all the derision coming from GOP "experts" (or perhaps because of it) his momentum is real, and the Republican nomination may be within his grasp.
But if he has not historically carried the conservative water on any reliable basis, just what is it about him that seems to be resonating with Heartland America? More importantly, what lessons should real conservatives learn from him that could bolster and strengthen their own efforts to advance the conservative agenda?
Perhaps that question could better be answered by identifying and quantifying the leadership void that currently exists at the highest levels of Republican politics. And that appalling circumstance can best be revealed by considering the true character and underlying motives of Trump's fiercest "Republican" critics.
Bush crony Karl Rove is among those most stridently attacking Trump, having dismissed him as "a joke candidate" and "inconsequential," particularly on account of Trump's dogged pursuit of the Obama birth certificate issue. Yet it is Rove who no longer holds any credibility with conservative America, in the aftermath of last year's electoral controversies, and his complete betrayal of the "Tea Party" movement.
Few grassroots conservatives will ever forget how Rove did his best to undermine Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate race after she unseated liberal RINO Mike Castle in the primary. Any pretenses of "party unity," or those overblown and distorted references to Ronald Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" were summarily abandoned, once Castle, the preordained establishment candidate, was rejected by voters. In light of this, Rove's derision may in fact boost Trump's standing among those on the Right.
More significantly, Americans are encouraged by Trump's refusal to allow the liberal media to dictate to him the subjects he can and cannot discuss. The Left has enjoyed far too much success in totally framing the debate on virtually every significant issue merely by castigating or mocking any who might ascribe to an opposing viewpoint. So it is a great encouragement to see someone stick to his guns, in complete indifference to the cat-calls of the "politically correct."
Some, such as radio talk show host Mark Levin, have rightly pointed to Trump's moral flexibility as cause for real concern. Unfortunately, as elastic as Trump has indeed been over the years, any such scrutiny will automatically contrast him against the disgraceful back peddling and waffling by entrenched Congressional Republicans whose track record is inarguably worse.
Trump offers bold and decisive plans to unleash America's entrepreneurial spirit by rolling back government taxation and regulation. The specifics of these plans notwithstanding, in the wake of the recent surrender to Obama and the Democrats by House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican Congressional "majority," even a dubious plan from Trump does not seem completely insupportable. Any "convictions" on Trump's part, though deviations from his past stances, are still likely to remain more stable and steadfast than the Republicans' 2010 "Pledge to America," the fundamental principles of which were unceremoniously jettisoned within weeks of the 2010 elections, out of a visceral fear of a government "shutdown."
It is not yet settled whether Donald Trump is truly serious about running for the nation's highest office. Nevertheless, his forays into the political arena have already had a positive effect on the conservative movement, and even if he does not actually intend to run, several invaluable lessons can be gleaned from his recent activity, and the public's response to it.
His meteoric rise to political prominence reflects a scarcity of inspiring leadership among the standard players in the party. America is crying out for courageous and unapologetic conservative leaders who will not run from critical issues of the day each time the Left resorts to its Alinsky tactics of vilification and marginalization.
The nation is fast approaching a "point of no return" from which the Left hopes to send it down an inexorable path into socialism and servitude. And those who intend such a course for it will not be stopped through standard political give and take. Conservatives who intend to prevail must rise to something higher, more principled, and more resolute than the "status quo" inside the Beltway. To the degree that Donald Trump gives an appearance of representing this, America shuns the sanctimony and pontificating from the elitists, and welcomes his entry into the fight.
Although I agree on several of your points, such as the vacuous lack of leadership in the Republican Party, the relentless genuflecting to a media that will always vilify conservatives and the lament that a character like Trump must arise as a standard bearer for conservatism, I still think Trump is a disaster on several levels. First, he is a clown and I mean that in the literal sense of the fool, the court jester. His reality show portrayed him as a caricature of himself, the comic book version of a serious businessman. Second, because of his harlequin status any issue he touches will be tainted. If he picks up the cause of limited government and free enterprise any serious candidate who touches those issues will be seen as parroting the lunatic ravings of a buffoon. Third, he will implode; flame out in some tantrum or outburst that will shift focus away from serious issues and on to a soap opera spectacle that will play out on the View or The Daily Show.
Maybe we can look at Trump as a twisted cry for help but in the mean time the Republicans need to find a real leader, and find him or her now. We have a strong bullpen in new stars like Allen West, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul but we don’t have the experience. Ron Paul just doesn’t have the charisma and the other Republican front runners are RINOs.
The author has it exactly right. Trump is resonating with people in a way that Republicans have miserably failed to do in no small part because of his brashness and outspokenness. The doddering impotence of the Republican party and total lack of any conviction or principles to which the party has shown any regard or loyalty in the last 10 years has turned it into a laughing stock. Trump will most assuredly not be the Republican nominee for president in 2012, but his presence in the race will do nothing but help the Republican party. Trump’s loud mouth and command of the media will only serve to bring clarity to the issues and the other candidates’ stances on them simply by their contrast. Frankly, the GOP needs Trump framing the issues, because they are incompetent to do so themselves. And in addressing Trump’s positions each Republican candidate will reveal to us whether or not he has any real conservative principles and/or the cajones to run on them. Stacked up against the current field of contenders I don’t mistrust Trump’s conservative credentials any more or less than the rest of the front-runner candidates, and if, even by accident, he saves the GOP from nominating any of a number of washed up, multi-time losers and also-rans who are only barely less statist than Obama, then he’ll have done the party the greatest service of any candidate in the last decade.
Rush has told us for years how to win an election and we won’t listen to him. All you have to do is champion conservative ideas in plain talk and the electorate will respond. That is exactly what Trump is doing plus he is challenging obama as Rush would. When will we wake up? No more Rinos! Let’s take the offensive! Thanks to The Donald for showing the milked toast crowd how to do it. 1-20-13
I support any effort Donald Trump may make to determine if it is really true that Osama bin Laden is dead. Trump should make clear to the nation that he will go to Pakistan, along with his forensic experts, to determine if bin Laden was killed or if his alleged death is a scam perpetrated by the liberals. I mean, how can anyone trust a US president who isn’t really an American citizen? And Obama didn’t even have to wear a flight suit!
Gestell, are you playing your hand so strongly because nobody has called you on it yet or are you just having fun? Either way I still maintain the Don is a disaster and a useful idiot for Obama. Is it any coincidence that he released the birth certificate at the same time the Fed Chairman was giving his first press conference? If Trump wouldn’t have given the President that opportunity you can bet we would have taken bin Laden down on the same day the Fed Chairman was doing his tap dance to the tune of incomprehensible double speak.
So what I’m gathering from this back-handed endorsement of Trump as Obama foil and provocateur is that when he flames out or drops from the nomination run the real Republican candidate will stand up, point to Trump and say, “Ditto what he said.” I guess it’s no worse than past Republican strategy.
Gestell is trying, though not succeeding, to be clever.
Since we’ve now heard that the Taliban isn’t sure bin Laden is really dead, I add that Trump should hook up with them in a joint investigation. That’s the only way we’ll know whether bin Laden is not only merely dead but most sincerely dead.
OK guys. Today’s Drudge says “Trump says Torture Works!”
Now who is this clown helping? The right has been trying for years to say that enhanced whatever is not torture, and I’ve determined that on my own from a simple discription of the waterboarding process. (I once held my breath for 120 seconds down the ladder in a pool) So who is The Donald helping. Obama, that’s who. But I’m not worried. They will both be political history soon.
I think the concern about whether or not some practice is or is not “torture” is largely irrelevant. If anything is subjective, torture surely is. And this is why I also think it is meaningless to agonize over whether “torture” is or is not morally unacceptable. In wartime, I assume that both sides will do whatever they can to get intelligence they believe they need to win. They will practice torture. And some of this torture will be necessary to get desired intelligence. This is why torture should not be discussed openly by a government engaging in it. It is one of those activities of government that should not see the light of day.
Gestell: You and I disagree about most topics but this is one that I think that you are right on.
I think it’s perfectly OK to talk about such things. 50+ years later, that is, as Paul Tibbits did in 2000 about an incendent that happened in the 1940′s. It seems there was a Nazi spy in the Chicago side of the Manhattan project. He was warned about it and told that they had followed the spy to a park were the guy met with his German contact. The CIA, or whatever, said they shot them both and dumped them in an alley on Chicago’s south side. Now that’s enhanced.
When the chips are down, as they are in war, conventional morality is a luxury. I don’t doubt that torture is morally wrong, but it may be necessary if you want to win. My difficulty with our ongoing wars is that none of our war-makers has ever explained how the wars might end. There will be no surrender of the insurgents, who will not have leaders to sign an instrument of surrender like the Japanese did aboard the USS Missouri. And if we think that pulling out once hostilities have declined to some acceptable level–whatever that may be–ends the problem, we’re wrong. What’s to keep the bad guys in Iraq from ramping up once our force level has dropped enough? And won’t pulling troops out of Afghanistan simply mean that areas over which we once exercised some control will now be controlled by the bad guys again? Common sense should tell us that we can’t kill them all. In short, our war aims consist in the fact that we don’t have any–and that’s what’s wrong with how Americans think about and wage war.