Finally!!! Someone from the never
Trump camp is actually saying it.
In an thoughtful op-ed, at the National
Review, writer Victor Davis Henson wrote this lengthy article which I not
only think you should read right now, but for your connivance, I will repost it here on the Blog:
Any Republican has a difficult
pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in
coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red.
Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New
Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have
devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what
information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.
In recent elections, centrists,
like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when
running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures
of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie.
When the media got through with a
good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian,
unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another
gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an
elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and
tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting
down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or
allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or
nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication.
In contrast, we were to believe Obama’s
adolescent faux Greek columns, hokey “lowering the seas and cooling the
planet,” vero possumus seal on his podium as president-elect, and 57 states
were Lincolnesque.
Why would 2016 not end up again in
losing nobly? Would once again campaigning under the Marquess of Queensberry
rules win Republicans a Munich reprieve?
The Orangeman Cometh
In such a hysterical landscape, it
was possible that no traditional Republican in 2016 was likely to win, even
against a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton, who emerged wounded from a
bruising primary win over aged socialist Bernie Sanders.
Then came along the Trump, the
seducer of the Right when the Republican establishment was busy early on
coronating Jeb Bush. After the cuckolded front-runners imploded, we all assumed
that Trump’s successful primary victories — oddly predicated on avoidance of a
ground game, internal polling, ad campaigns, sophisticated fundraising, and a
sea of consultants and handlers — were hardly applicable to Clinton, Inc. She
surely would bury him under a sea of cash, consultants, and sheer manpower.
That Trump was an amateur, a cad,
his own worst enemy, cynically leveraging a new business or brand, and at any
time could say anything was supposedly confirmation of Hillary’s inevitable
victory. Her winning paradigm was seen as simply anti-Trump rather than
pro-Hillary: light campaigning to conserve her disguised fragile health, while
giving full media attention to allow Trump to elucidate his fully obnoxious
self. Her campaign was to be a series of self-important selfies, each more
flattering to the beholder but otherwise of no interest to her reluctant
supporters.
For insurance, Clinton would enlist
the bipartisan highbrow Washington establishment to close ranks, with their
habitual tsk-tsking of Trump in a nuanced historical context — “Hitler,”
“Stalin,” “Mussolini,” “brown shirt,” etc.
For all Hillary’s hundreds of
millions of corporate dollars and legions of Clinton Foundation strategists,
she could never quite shake Trump, who at 70 seemed more like a frenzied 55.
Hillary would rely on the old Obama team of progressive hit men in the
public-employee unions, the news ministries, the pajama-boy bloggers, the race
industry, and the open-borders lobbies to brand Trump supporters as racist,
sexist, misogynist, Islamophobic, nativist, homophobic. The shades of Obama’s
old white reprehensible “Clingers” would spring back to life as “The
Deplorables.”
Yet for all Hillary’s hundreds of
millions of corporate dollars and legions of Clinton Foundation strategists,
she could never quite shake Trump, who at 70 seemed more like a frenzied 55.
Trump at his worst was never put away by Hillary at her best, and he has stayed
within six to eight points for most of his awful August and is now nipping her
heels as October nears.
Fracking Populist Fury
Trumps hare-and-tortoise strategy,
his mishmash politics, reinventions, mastery of free publicity, and El Jefe
celebrity had always offered him an outside chance of winning. But he is most
aided by the daily news cycle that cannot be quite contorted to favor Hillary
Clinton. Last weekend, in a 48-hour cycle, there were “Allahu akbar” attacks in
Minneapolis and New York, pipe-bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey, and
shootings of police in Philadelphia — the sort of violence that the public
feels is not addressed by “workplace violence” and “hands up, don’t shoot”
pandering.
Almost daily we read of these
disasters that channel Trump’s Jacksonian populism, from closed Ford Motor
plants moving to Mexico to yet another innocent killed by an illegal alien to
more crowds flowing unimpeded across the border. Having Vicente Fox and Jorge
Ramos spew televised animus at you is about as much a downside as Cher’s
threats to leave the U.S. in 2016 or the plagiarist Fareed Zakaria’s frowns.
When Barack Obama is reduced to begging African-American audiences, on the
basis of racial solidarity, to vote for Hillary to preserve his ego and legacy,
something is up.
All that news buzz is sandwiched by
almost hourly reports of hacked e-mails, Clinton Foundation scandals, and
violations of federal protocols — drip, drip, drip disclosures with more
promised on the horizon. Some wondered, Why did not Hillary come clean and end
the psychodramas? But that is like asking blue jays to become songbirds.
Hubris does finally earn nemesis —
and at the most disastrous Oedipal moment. This time around, even the media is
no defense against an entirely new 21st-century hydra. Cyber serpents have no
ideologies other than anarchist ruin. Hackers give Hillary no more exemption,
due to her professed progressivism, than they would any other sucker foolish
enough to be famous, sloppy in electronic communications, and self-righteous,
sanctimonious, and slippery. Ask the ambidextrous and once iconic Colin Powell.
Trump’s electoral calculus was easy
to fathom. He needed to win as many independents as Romney, enthuse some new
Reagan Democrats to return to politics, keep steady the Republican
establishment, and win at least as much of the Latino and black vote as had the
underperforming McCain and Romney — all to win seven or eight swing states. He
planned to do that, in addition to not stepping on IEDs, through the simple
enough strategy of an outraged outsider not nibbling, but blasting away, at
political correctness, reminding audiences that he was not a traditional
conservative, but certainly more conservative than Hillary, and a roguish
celebrity billionaire with a propensity to talk with, not down to, the lower
middle classes.
That the establishment was repulsed
by his carroty look, his past scheming, his Queens-accented bombast, and his
nationalist policies only made him seem more authentic to his supporters, old
and possibly new as well. The more Trump grew unnaturally calmer, he became
somewhat presentable, and the more he did, the more a flummoxed Hillary
returned to her natural shrillness — and likewise became less viable.
By late September, Trump had slowly
mastered the electoral formula, in part due to his new campaign staff —
ridiculed as amateurs by the handler establishment but who were versed in pop
culture that may have made establishment politics this year obsolete. In good
Obama (the erstwhile opponent of gay marriage and big deficits) and Clinton
(the former free trader and closed-borders advocate) style, Trump became a
version of the comic-book character The Flash: He left his critics far behind
to shoot at empty silhouettes while he zoomed miles away to pause in his new
incarnation.
Never in My Name?
The only missing tessera in Trump’s
mosaic is the Republican establishment, or rather the 10 percent or so of them
whose opposition might resonate enough to cost Trump 1–2 percent in one or two
key states and spell his defeat. Some NeverTrump critics would prefer a Trump
electoral disaster that still could redeem their warnings that he would destroy
the Republican party; barring that, increasingly many would at least settle to
be disliked, but controversial, spoilers in a 1–2 percent loss to Hillary
rather than irrelevant in a Trump win.
To be fair, NeverTrump’s logic is
that Trump’s past indiscretions and lack of ethics, his present opportunistic
populist rather than conservative message, and the Sarah Palin nature of
some of his supporters (whom I think Hillary clumsily referenced as the
“deplorables” and whom Colin Powell huffed off as “poor white folks”) make him
either too reckless to be commander-in-chief or too liberal to be endorsed by
conservatives — or too gauche to admit supporting in reasoned circles.
Perhaps.
But the proper question is a
reductionist “compared to what?” NeverTrumpers assume that the latest
insincerely packaged Trump is less conservative than the latest incarnation of
an insincere Clinton on matters of border enforcement, military spending, tax
and regulation reform, abortion, school choice, and cabinet and Supreme Court
appointments. That is simply not a sustainable proposition.
Is Trump uncooked all that much
more odious than the sautéed orneriness of the present incumbent, who has
variously insulted the Special Olympics, racially stereotyped at will, resorted
to braggadocio laced with violent rhetoric, racially hyped ongoing criminal
trials, serially lied about Obamacare and Benghazi, ridiculed the grandmother
who scrimped to send him to a private prep school, oversaw government
corruption from the IRS to the VA to the GSA, and has grown the national debt
in a fashion never before envisioned? Trump on occasion did not recognize the
“nuclear triad,” but then he probably does not say “corpse men” either or
believe we added 57 states.
Did the scandals and divisiveness
of the last eight years ever prompt in 2012 a Democratic #NeverObama walkout or
a 2016 progressive “not in my name” disowning of Obama? Are there 50 former
Democratic foreign-policy veterans who cannot stomach Hillary’s prevarications
and what she has done to national security, and therefore will sign a letter of
principled non-support? Did socialist idealist and self-appointed ethicist
Bernie Sanders play a Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or Jeb Bush, and plead that
Hillary’s Wall Street and pay-for-play grifting was so antithetical to his
share-the-wealth fantasies that he would stay home?
Replying in kind to a Gold Star
Muslim family or attacking a Mexican-American judge who is a member of a La
Raza legal group is, of course, stupid and crass, but perhaps not as stupid as
Hillary, before a Manhattan crowd of millionaires, writing off a quarter of
America as deplorable, not American, and reprobate racists and bigots.
As for Trump’s bombast, I wish
there was an accepted and consistent standard of political discourse by which
to censure his past insensitiveness and worse, but there has not been one for
some time. Examine, for example, the level of racial invective used in the past
by Hillary Clinton (“working, hard-working Americans, white Americans”), Harry
Reid (“light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted
to have one”), Joe Biden (“first mainstream African American who is articulate
and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”), or Barack Obama (his own
grandmother became a “typical white person”), and it’s hard to make the
argument that Trump’s vocabulary marks a new low, especially given that few if
any liberals bothered much about the racist tripe of their own. Trump so far
has not appeared in linguistic blackface to patronize and mock the intelligence
of an African-American audience with a 30-second, manufactured, and bad
Southern accent in the manner of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
Similarly, in the old days, any
candidates who met with the press, held news conferences, were easily
cross-examined, gave out their blood tests and EKG results (did Obama or
Hillary?), had small staffs and few TV ads, raised little outside money, spoke
extemporaneously, and were not prepped by legions of handlers were considered
“different” in the sense that they were welcomed mavericks to an otherwise
scripted campaign season. In a bankrupt Washington world in which “wise man”
Colin Powell writes to a multimillionaire donor and lobbyist partner and other
insiders about Bill Clinton “d***ing bimbos,” flashes the elite race card, namedrops
the Hamptons and the Bohemian Grove, whines that Hillary’s greed drove down his
own excessive speaking fees, unkindly attacks his own former promoters, and
exchanges e-mail inane intimacies with a former foreign diplomatic official,
the supposedly misogynist Trump is the first Republican nominee to entrust his
party’s fate to a female campaign manager and a female African-American
national spokesperson.
An Overdue Reckoning
Trump’s ball-and-chain flail, such
as it can be fathomed, is in large part overdue. The old Wall Street Journal
adherence to open borders was not so conservative — at least not for those on
the front lines of illegal immigration and without the means to navigate around
the concrete ramifications of the open-borders ideologies of apartheid elites.
How conservative was a definition of free trade that energized European Union
subsidies on agriculture, tariffs on American imports into Japan, Chinese
cheating or peddling toxic products, or general dumping into the United States?
For two decades, farmers and small businesses have been wiped out in rural
America; that destruction may have been “creative,” but it certainly was not
because the farmers and business owners were stupid, lazy, or uncompetitive. By
this late date, for millions, wild and often unpredictable populist venting
became preferable to being sent to the library to be enlightened by Adam Smith
or Edmund Burke.
The Wall Street Journal adherence
to open borders was not so conservative — at least not for those on the front
lines of illegal immigration and without the means to navigate around the
concrete ramifications of the open-borders ideologies of apartheid elites.
Outsourcing and offshoring did not make the U.S more competitive, at least for
most Americans outside of Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Boutique corporate
multiculturalism was always driven by profits while undermining the rare
American idea of e pluribus unum assimilation — as the canny multimillionaires
like Colin Kaepernick and Beyoncé grasped. Long ago, an Ivy League brand ceased
being synonymous with erudition or ethics — as Bill, Hillary, and Barack Obama
showed. Defeated or retired “conservative” Republican grandees were just as
likely as their liberal counterparts to profit from their government service in
Washington to rake in lobbyist cash. So hoi polloi were about ready for
anything — or rather everything.
In sum, if Trump’s D-11 bulldozer
blade did not exist, it would have to be invented. He is Obama’s nemesis,
Hillary’s worst nightmare, and a vampire’s mirror of the Republican
establishment. Before November’s election, his next outburst or reinvention
will once again sorely embarrass his supporters, but perhaps not to the degree
that Clinton’s erudite callousness should repel her own. In farming, I learned
there is no good harvest, only each year one that’s 51 percent preferable to
the alternative, which in 2016 is a likely 16-year Obama-Clinton hailstorm. It
may be discomforting for some conservatives to vote for the Republican party’s
duly nominated candidate, but as this Manichean two-person race ends, it is now
becoming suicidal not to.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a
classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and
the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by
e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2016 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Stay tuned for my own commentary in the next post...
No comments:
Post a Comment