Is billionaire and Republican front runner Donald J. Trump a conservative, or not?

Fox News’ Jesse Watters has made the best possible case that he is.

“Come on, let’s talk about his conservative principles on the three core issues Donald Trump is about; immigration, national security and jobs. He is the most conservative guy out there and he is setting the agenda,” Watters said on Friday, responding to National Review‘s anti-Trump manifesto. He could have added a few others, like guns.

But that’s not quite convincing enough for many conservatives. Trump’s vehemence about his views should not, and does not, obscure the fact that they are, for the most part, very new.

This is a man, after all, who criticized 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for using the term “self-deportation” because it was “mean-spirited.” That was, for those keeping track, one election ago.

Now Trump wants all Muslims barred. (Ahem.)

True, Trump has been willing to sacrifice his own brand for the sake of his newly conservative posture–a sign that he is serious.

But let us stipulate, for argument’s sake, that Trump has a “mixed record on conservatism,” as my colleague Ben Shapiro put it rather diplomatically.

There are many conservatives who still support him wholeheartedly, and there is a real conservative case for Trump. And I say this as an observer who has been skeptical of Trump from the start.

The Buckley rule. William F. Buckley, Jr., whom Trump cites to defend “New York values,” urged conservatives to support the most conservative candidate who can win. And Trump may be the only one, in an election that will decide the Supreme Court’s future.

Whatever the head-to-head polls say on any given day, unless she is indicted, Hillary Clinton is likely to win this year. She has the Electoral College in her favor, and the media on her side.

Only Trump has shown the daring necessary to challenge Clinton’s built-in advantages.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who in theory is the most “electable” Republican in the field, for example, declined to target Clinton over her role in her husband’s scandals. Trump, in contrast, released an ad featuring not only Monica Lewinsky, but also Anthony Weiner. He claims credit for Hillary’s slump in the polls against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and he is partly right.

Other candidates–Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, for one–looked amazing on paper but failed to connect with voters in practice. Cruz, Trump’s closest rival, may yet win Iowa, and has the ability to contest every primary, but has renewed doubts about his ability to win a general election after his “New York values” attack.

Trump, meanwhile, has re-discovered the “Reagan Democrats,” the Holy Grail of Republican politics. He may be the only hope.

The consequentialist case. Trump’s value to conservatism is not what he believes, but what his election would do, regardless of his own policies.

For one thing, as I have argued before, the fact that there is such strong conservative opposition to Trump, as well as a fervent desire among establishment Republicans to be seen opposing him (even if they do say they prefer him to Cruz), means that if he won, Congress might finally stand up to the executive branch.

That is why the possible excesses of a Trump presidency are less fearsome than many think. Much of what he says he wants to do may be unwise (e.g. 45% tariffs on China), or unconstitutional (e.g. broad surveillance of mosques). But Trump will enjoy less deference from a Republican Congress than Obama has, and will have no help at all from the mainstream media. That should please constitutional conservatives who want to restore the balance of powers.

Moreover, just by winning the nomination, Trump will have advanced the conservative cause. While he may have held left-wing views in the past, Trump has largely been running to the right, at least in the primary, affirming the power of the conservative base and conservative principles in an election cycle where the original favorite began by promising to ignore them. A movement that rewards converts even more than stalwarts is well-disposed to expand.

Even if he does not win, a Trump loss would be less damaging to the conservative cause than a loss by any other. If an”establishment” candidate wins the primary, but loses to Clinton, the GOP’s conservative base will give up hope. If a conservative, like Cruz, loses in the general, the establishment will start the purge it has been itching to launch.

But a Trump loss would likely be seen as a once-off, from which both conservatives and the GOP might rebuild.

The importance of victory. But enough about losing. A Trump win would have a galvanizing effect on American politics and the American public, much as Andrew Jackson’s win did in 1828, restoring a sense that voters, and not Washington elites, rule.

Many conservatives–even at the National Review–support him precisely because he is determined to shake up a system in which the status quo is not guided by conservative values but cronyism.

Conservatism is pessimistic about human nature, but optimistic about life. The radical left depends on hopelessness, while conservatism thrives on happiness. Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 was, in a sense, the last achievement of his failed presidency, which still depends on casting America as a nation in crisis.

A Trump win would not, by itself, “make America great again.” but it would urge Americans to believe that we still have the answers within.

Source: http://www.teaparty.org/conservative-case-donald-trump-140937/

Views: 9036

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thought I denoted a bit of delicateness along with PC in Kasich. Log Cabin Repukes uh? Interesting title. Was Abe Lincoln gay? And they all have the nerve to ask if Trump is Conservative.

The LGBT people will vote their sexuality rather than what is good for the county as a whole.  So where is their so called democracy....I guess equality only exists when they say so.

Delicateness in Kasich, yes. And deception. Remember his, "Oh well, SCOTUS has ruled. Let's get on with it."  So much for marriage. And his version of Bible thumping has more to do with COEXIST rather than the crucifiction and resurrections of Jesus Christ.

He has a magic wand when it comes to Christianity. He makes it whatever he wants it to be.

We need a rainbow for Kasich. He is a full blown progressive no doubt about that. He is a 'Bender" in more ways than one.

yep

You all know this already but am posting just as a reminder.

What You Need To Know About The Government Manipulating You Through Social Media (Video)

http://www.talknetwork.com/2016-03-29-what-you-need-to-know-about-t...

Since when do Unions even consider endorsing someone who claims to be a Republican?

Labor unions giving serious thought to endorsing Trump

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/labor-unions-giving-serious-thoug...

Border Patrol union endorses Donald Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/border-patrol-union-endorses...

Then from Trump's own mouth:

Donald Trump: I have tremendous support within unions

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/8/donald-trump-i-have-...

There is more:

Federal employee union announces endorsement of … Donald Trump

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/31/federal-employee-union-announ...

SEIU Union Leader: My Blue-Collar Members Support Trump’s Message

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/2729682/

Typically they don't ever endorse Republicans, - but in this case, they're doing what they're told to do. I wonder how much they like knowing that Trump's clothing line is made in China.

Are you comparing Ted Kennedy with Ted Cruz? If so why is that?
Jeff the only differences Ted Kennedy has had more impact on legislation from the U S Senate particularly in the area of immigration.
Ted Cruz has only made a position on it. Jim content maybe has written about Pres Roosevelt.
Ted Kennedy was the president and Ted Cruz is just a Senater

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

Breaking — West Virginia Lawmakers Invite Persecuted Pro-Second Amendment Counties In Virginia To Join Their State

West Virginia lawmakers introduced legislation to invite persecuted pro Second Amendment Counties to join their state.

The West Virginia Senate adopted a resolution to remind Virginia residents from Frederick County that they have a standing invite — from 1862 — to become part of West Virginia.

West Virginia freedom fighters broke away from Virginia Democrat slave owners during the Civil War.

This week West Virginia has once again invited persecuted Virginia pro 2-A counties to come join their state.

Sounds like a winning plan!

Resolution 8 reads as follows:

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8

(By Delegates Howell, Summers, Shott, Householder, C. Martin, Hott, Graves, Cadle, Barnhart, J. Jeffries, Maynard, Phillips, Foster, Hamrick, Steele, D. Jeffries, Wilson, Waxman, Bartlett, Paynter, Linville, Sypolt, Bibby, Hill, Ellington, Higginbotham, J. Kelly, Mandt, Pack, Dean and P. Martin)

[Introduced January 14, 2020]

Providing for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia

Whereas, The Legislature of West Virginia finds that in 1863, due to longstanding perceived attitudes of neglect for the interests of the citizens of Western Virginia, and a studied failure to address the differences which had grown between the counties of Western Virginia and the government at Richmond, the Commonwealth of Virginia was irretrievably divided, and the new State of West Virginia was formed; and

Whereas, Such division occurred as the Trans-Allegheny portions of Virginia perceived that they suffered under an inequitable measure of taxation by which they bore a disproportionate share of the tax burden; and

Whereas, That this perception was further compounded by the effects of a scheme of representation by which Trans-Allegheny Virginia was not allowed to have its proper and equitable share of representation in the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, That this arrangement arguably resulted in the tax dollars of Trans-Allegheny Virginia being used to enrich the Tidewater through internal improvements which did not benefit the people of Western Virginia, while the people of the Trans-Allegheny had little to no say in how their tax dollars were allocated; and

Whereas, Though this course led to an irreconcilable division, and the subsequent formation of West Virginia, yet, the longstanding peaceful cooperation between this State and the Commonwealth of Virginia is a sign that such separation, undertaken even under the most challenging and onerous of circumstances, can, with the passage of time, yield lasting results which are beneficial to both sides; and

Whereas, In the intervening years, the same neglect for the interests of many of the remaining counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia has allegedly been evidenced by the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, Particularly, many citizens of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont contend that an inequitable measure of taxation exists by which they bear a disproportionate share of the present tax burden of the Commonwealth; and

Whereas, The people of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont also believe that, currently, a scheme of representation exists by which the citizens of Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont do not have a proper share of representation in the government at Richmond; and, consequently

Whereas, The people of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont believe that their tax dollars are used to enrich the Tidewater and Northern Virginia through internal improvements which do not benefit the people of these other parts of Virginia, while the people of these other parts of Virginia have little to no say in how their tax dollars are allocated; and

Whereas, In recent days, these tensions have been compounded by a perception of contempt on the part of the government at Richmond for the differences in certain fundamental political and societal principles which prevail between the varied counties and cities of that Commonwealth; and

Whereas, In the latest, and most evident, in this string of grievances, the government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth; and

Whereas, The Legislative body of West Virginia believes that this latest action defies the wise counsel which has come down to us in the august words of our common Virginia Founders: as the government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that tribune of liberty, Patrick Henry-who stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of a Signer of the Declaration and premier advocate of American independence, Richard Henry Lee-who stated in The Federal Farmer that “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that zealous guardian of our inherent rights, George Mason-who stated that “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of the declaimer of our independence and theoretician of our freedoms, Thomas Jefferson-who stated in his first draft of the Virginia Constitution, that “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”; and

Whereas, The Boards of Supervisors of many Virginia counties and the Councils of many Virginia cities have recognized this dangerous departure from the doctrine of the Founders on the part of the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, These Boards of Supervisors and Councils have passed resolutions refusing to countenance what they affirm are unwarranted and unconstitutional measures by that government to infringe the firearm rights of Virginians; and

Whereas, The actions of the government at Richmond undertaken since the recent general election have, regrettably, resulted in unproductive contention and escalating a lamentable state of civic tension; and

Whereas, That, as has been proven in numerous instances, such as have been observed internationally in more recent times with the peaceful dissolutions of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, and the creation of South Sudan, or, earlier in Virginia’s own history, with the formation of Kentucky, the peaceful partition of neighboring peoples can occur, and, is often very beneficial to both sides in reducing tensions and improving the tenor of discourse over ongoing political and societal differences; and

Whereas, Article VI, Section 11 of The Constitution of the State of West Virginia explicitly permits additional territory to be admitted into, and become part of this state, with the consent of the Legislature and of a majority of the qualified voters of the state; and

Whereas, In a spirit of conciliation, the Legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so, to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond; and, we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the body politic of the State of West Virginia, under the conditions set forth in our state Constitution, specifically, with the consent of a majority of the voters of such county or city voting upon such proposition; and we hereby covenant that their many grievances shall be addressed, and, we further covenant with them that their firearms rights shall be protected to the fullest extent possible under our Federal and State Constitutions; and

Whereas, Providing that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall give its assent to any county or independent city presently part of the Commonwealth of Virginia having the opportunity and ability to do so, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia.

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service