Laura Ingraham argues that small-government conservatives should rally behind Trumpist populism because it's the only way to break the iron grip of the GOPe and ensure that the GOP is no longer where genuine conservative ideas go to die. She acknowledges that many conservatives fear Trump is an unprincipled closet liberal, but counters that all the ostensible conservatives we've managed to elect are the same. Cruz might be different, yes, but he should let Trump pave the way and then hope he can get in there somehow and have his ideas heard for a change. Finally, she argues that supporting populism is kinda sorta congruent with small-government conservatism, even if populism has to be implemented by big-government policies, because populism is about increased opportunity instead of the status quo.
I don't find any of this persuasive. The real question is, though, whether I find it more persuasive than the idea that we should either stay home or (gag) vote for Clinton.
12 comments:
If you vote for Clinton, you're part of the problem.
With some of the candidates, we know what we have to lose.
With some, we have no idea outside of what they say-
I am at the stage I would rather throw the dice, than vote for someone I know to be unsuitable in the extreme.
People don't have to vote at all. They can reserve their support until the data is in, even if that takes decades.
The idea that there are only two choices and that you have to pick one over the other, applies more to war, not elections that rely upon the support and power of the people.
If it is the people's power, there's no reason why they should pick two inferior alternatives. Not unless the choice was never theirs to make, but the system's. If it is the case that the system chose their candidates, then people never did have a choice to begin. They can either prop up and play along with the system, or go their own path.
@ Ymar Ah, The System. Yeah, I've been noticing how well Jeb Bush has been doing. I have to wonder in the face of this election if there is anything you would consider evidence that your paranoid assumptions might not be 100% true? There is a certain amount of inertia in any system, which in no way implies that there are dark forces controlling it.
@ T99, I am also not persuaded, but I appreciate intelligent conservatives trying to find not only consolation, but potential work-arounds if Trump is elected.
There are plenty of other races on every ballot. I always leave one blank as a matter of principle. It may be the presidential one this time. But I also do not in the least fear negative voting. Having seen the choices thrown up for my friends in Romania since the Revolution, I haven't found anything here descend to near that level.
When I think seriously about any way in which Trump could prove worse than Clinton, I just can't get there. Even if Trump is flying almost completely false colors, he would be better. He would be more disappointing, but not worse.
I don't consider the option of not voting to be open to me.
One can make the case for 'populism' so long as the definition of same is congruent with the National Interest.
Yah, hey, that term isn't used too often.
Perhaps we should push the idea that Trump could gain conservative support by promising to fill that SCOTUS vacancy with Cruz.
As for the Presidency, I'm willing for it to go to anyone except Clinton. Sanders, Trump, Rubio, anyone else. None of the rest are already guilty of betraying their oaths in the way that she is.
"One can make the case for 'populism' so long as the definition of same is congruent with the National Interest."
I'm not sure I know what that means. If the National Interest isn't about what the people choose for themselves, I don't necessarily feel that much allegiance to it, though of course I may believe the people are choosing something foolish and self-destructive (as they often do). Whenever it comes down to the wisdom and needs of the state vs. the wisdom and needs of the many people with their individual choices, I'm always going with the people. Populism loses me only when it becomes a platform for goodies to help the "little guy" because the big guys ought to cough it up--or tariffs, which I purely detest as a hopeless and fruitless and counterproductive strategy.
The idea that a vote for Trump is really going to give us Cruz dividends, too, because Trump will put Cruz on the Court, has been making the rounds for many weeks now. It's not a terrible idea, as Cruz would make an excellent S. Ct. justice; I just wish I had the slightest confidence that Trump would do any such thing. If Cruz is in the White House, I know with absolute certainty that he will give us excellent S. Ct. nominations. Trump might do anything at all in that department. If we're lucky, he'll hire the right people to vet the candidates and give us some strict constitutionalists, but he might do something completely unpredictable.--Anyway, his choices would beat the horrors Clinton or Sanders would come up with.
It's not a terrible idea, as Cruz would make an excellent S. Ct. justice; I just wish I had the slightest confidence that Trump would do any such thing.
Some pledge to do so, for example? That's what I meant to suggest.
If Cruz is in the White House, I know with absolute certainty that he will give us excellent S. Ct. nominations. Trump might do anything at all...
Right. I don't mean to suggest favoring Trump over Cruz. I mean that, should Cruz not win, this would be a plausible path for Trump to win over Cruz's supporters. Instead of the VP slot, which is better used on someone who isn't going to be needed for anything important, SCOTUS would be a really powerful place to put Cruz.
@ Ymar Ah, The System. Yeah, I've been noticing how well Jeb Bush has been doing
That's one system, but not The System, of course. When you don't comprehend what I'm talking about, AV, it doesn't really matter what you think about my little theories, now does it.
None of the rest are already guilty of betraying their oaths in the way that she is.
A dark conspiracy, as AV might see it as. Yet the difference between beliefs is thinner than people would like to assume.
That is, of course, not the System either.
Post a Comment