Friday, March 18, 2016

Why I'm Backing #NeverTrump: A "Cuckservative" Speaks

Let me get a few disclaimers out of the way before I dive into the meat of this post:
  1. I don't want anyone to read this post as an implicit attack on engaged conservative friends who are making different judgments. I know many good people who believe that voting for a third party candidate - and possibly giving the presidency to Hillary - will be worse for the country and for conservatism as a movement than letting Trump have his fun flying our banner for a few years. I understand this position. Indeed, when it comes to foreign policy in particular (which is mostly the province of the executive branch), this is an argument that has real merit. (Letting Hillary, the architect of the Benghazi fiasco, pick our Secretary of State? Ugh and aieeee!) 
  2. At the same time, I would like to assure my readers that my refusal to campaign or vote for Trump does not mean that I will be canvassing for Hillary -- or that I will be abandoning the GOP completely. Because I am well aware that voting third party in the presidential race may cost the Republicans the presidential election, I will be working twice as hard to make sure solid conservatives win the down-ticket races so our government remains split. Obstruction for the win, baby! That's how the Framers designed our system. 
That being said -- yes, I am sporting a red #NeverTrump badge on my sidebar. This post is intended to explain why it's there.

(PS: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And to those who've chosen to be rude, thanks for all the hate!)

(PPS: No, I'm not "eschewing all Instapundit readers." I'm eschewing the impolite. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have edited the above remark accordingly.)

I sympathize with the reasons why Donald Trump is a phenomenon. As many fine writers have carefully documented, recent economic and social upheavals have created a ruling class that is increasingly divorced from the concerns of ordinary Americans. The members of said ruling class - those equipped to take advantage of the post-industrial revolution - attend the same posh universities, consume the same trendy media, and cluster in self-segregated enclaves that are fully shielded against the negative blow-back their faddish notions create. To borrow Peggy Noonan's formulation, they are the "protected." It doesn't matter to them that preserving an endangered fish has dried up what was once a productive agricultural zone. It doesn't matter to them that their stumping for "alternative lifestyles" has destroyed the family - and consequently, financial security and social capital - for those in the lowest quartile. They can afford to agitate against fossil fuels because, for them, a higher energy bill will take mere drops from their buckets. They can dismiss an insecure border as a non-issue because they directly benefit from the cheap labor force it brings into being.

It is also true that many ordinary Americans have been the targets of an outrageous campaign to label them with every -ist and -ism under the sun -- a campaign to "unperson" folks who happen to have sincere doubts about a host of causes that are beloved by the aforementioned ruling class and its enablers in the clerisy. Do you have religious objections to homosexual marriage? Do you worry that allowing unverifiable self declarations to dictate which restroom or locker room people are permitted to use will enable sex offenders and pedophiles to victimize women and children? Sorry, but you will be forced to embrace what you oppose -- or the activist left will shut you down. Are you a student or professor who believes colleges and universities should be bastions of free inquiry and debate where no idea is considered too dangerous to discuss? Prepare to be harassed by your campus community - or even hounded out of your job - for your sins. Are you disgusted by the tactics of Black Lives Matter and similar groups? Well, you're obviously a racist. It never stops; indeed, even our leisure pursuits aren't safe. If you want to play video games or read books without being beaten over the head with the Cause of the Moment? Ugh! Untermensch!

Am I angry? Hell yes! Do I want to metaphorically clobber the leftists and clueless technocrats who denigrate our anxieties and seem to have no love whatsoever for our nation or its people? Absolutely! I just don't believe rallying behind Trump - and being glib about the very real challenges of governing one of the most culturally and politically diverse nations on the planet - will get us what we really want. Looking back to the past - instead of adapting to the upcoming future - will not restore our opportunity culture. Making unachievable demands of foreign powers will not restore our security or sovereignty. And contra the arguments of Trump's supporters, there are ways to fight against the sustained attack on our rights that don't involve playing by the left's fascist rules.

When I've talked to conservative Trump supporters - and to other conservatives, let's be honest - I've run across a common theme: The Republican establishment (derisively referred to as the GOPe) has done nothing to fulfill its campaign promises. Really? Let's consider last fall's joint budget deal. While not a flawless document by any stretch of the imagination, Paul Ryan managed to wrest from the Democrats several undeniably conservative concessions, including lifting the ban on exporting our oil, maintaining the ban on tax relief for Obamacare co-ops, postponing Obamacare's Medical Device Tax and Cadillac Tax, reigning in funding for the IRS, and basically freezing funding for the EPA. The Republicans in Congress also passed a bill that defunded Planned Parenthood and have voted more than fifty times to fully repeal or amend Obamacare -- the very law that drove the Republican landslide in 2010. True, these votes have led to no concrete results -- but that's because Obama was in the way. "What about the power of the purse?" conservatives then ask. Well, theoretically, the Congress does have that power. In reality, however, its exercise results in government shutdowns -- and when the government shuts down, the Republicans are invariably savaged by the press. "So what? They should stand on principle!" Standing on principle is all well and good. Unfortunately, the electorate wants a government that "works," and ignoring this fact will do nothing to convince voters that we're fighting for the nation's best interests.

Which brings me to the underlying issue that conservatives must acknowledge if our ideas are to have any traction at all: The distrust Americans have for our government as it is currently run does not necessarily translate into a distrust for government in general.  Let's face it: For a long time, we basically ceded the engines of culture to the left. We allowed leftist "intellectuals" to take control of our education system and our entertainment media, and we are now seeing the fruits of that mistake. Younger folks in particular have been fed a steady diet of faux history that paints government action in a positive light; as a consequence, these voters have a difficult time imagining how social goods can be achieved without government involvement. Further, the zeitgeist has almost completely eroded the safety nets that used to exist within local communities and neighborhoods, leaving the government bureaucracy as your only recourse if you happen to run into trouble. Thus, voters fear what would happen if Republicans actually succeeded in shrinking the size of the federal government. To win, we have to address that fear. I hate to say it, but when it comes to practical politics, we may have to execute a tactical retreat; in other words, we should institute whatever incremental reforms we can in the short run and at the same time get our hands dirty doing charitable work that will build the community and cultural institutions we need to help us win the war in the long run.

In doing this work, one thing we will have to grapple with is the impact of globalization. That Trump has highlighted the plight of folks who've lost their manufacturing jobs to workers in Asia is a good and necessary thing. But when I hear Trump supporters push "fair trade," that gives me serious pause. "Will it really hurt us," one Trump supporter asked me, "if iPhones, computers, and TV's become a little more expensive?" Well, yes -- because it won't just be those supposed "luxury" goods that will be affected. Most of the clothes in my closet were made in China or Vietnam - sorry, guys, but on my $30,000 per annum salary, that's what I can afford - and last time I checked, clothes were considered a necessity. No: Attempting to resurrect the blue model of the industrial age seems, to me, to be a fight we will lose. Rising industrial powers in the developing world are unlikely to play ball and accede to Trump's demands because, talk of "sweat shops" aside, their citizens want those jobs. (Yes, they really do. Factory jobs with crappy pay still beat subsistence farming.) And while this effect is far less visible than quiet smokestacks, defunct factories, and zones of high unemployment, the cheap goods free trade has brought to our shores have dramatically improved our average standard of living.

"So what do we do instead to bring life back to our Rust Belt?" a Trump supporter may ask. A truly conservative answer to this legitimate question, I think, would involve several key planks. Number one, we must radically expand educational choice, restoring the respectability of vocational education and adjusting what we offer in such programs to match what is actually available in our post-industrial job market. I'm not talking a Common Core here; I'm talking about listening to folks like Mike Rowe, who know where the solid, secure, decently paying work that doesn't require a college education can still be found. Number two, we must loosen regulatory barriers that inhibit both small business development and domestic energy development. Number three, we must be more discriminating when crafting our immigration policy.

"Ah, but Trump has made immigration a central theme of his campaign. If you believe we should put limits on immigration, you obviously need to vote for Trump!" Well, no, that's not quite so obvious. Am I happy Trump has moved the Overton Window rightward on this particular issue? Sure! I work with a lot of immigrants and consequently don't oppose immigration as a general rule. But is it prudent to screen entrants and demand they accept minimum standards of conduct? Yes. And is it 100% proper to question whether certain groups and certain ideologies are assimilable? You bet! We are not obligated to throw open our doors to everyone, and we are fully within our rights to tighten the spigot if we feel that serves our national interest. Alas, Trump seems to believe that the sheer force of his charisma will inspire foreign leaders to bend to his will, ignoring the hard truth that diplomacy - like politics - is the art of the possible. You can't strut around proclaiming that you're going to force Mexico to pay for a "yuge" border wall and expect to be taken seriously in the international community. You just can't.

And that leads me to what bothers me the most about Trump: his rhetoric. The ugly things he says and the ugly things he promotes are things I don't want associated with the conservative label. There's fighting political correctness and then there's just being an asshole -- and Trump has frequently slipped into that second bracket. I'm sorry, but for me, this is a matter of consistency. Many, many times on this blog, I have taken social justice warriors to task for their rank illiberalism and thirst for feral vengeance against the "white, heterosexual cismales" they feel have oppressed them, pointing out that if they have legitimate grievances, they are being lost in a sea of utterly toxic crap. Well, the same rule applies to Trump and his supporters. I get that you are sick of being stomped on for opposing the progressives' attempts to engineer our society and control everything we think and say. But turning the tables and giving leftists a taste of their own vile medicine, while admittedly satisfying on a lizard-brain level, will not actually bring about constructive change. Remember the rider and the elephant? Bullying others inspires defensiveness. Worse, it destroys our ability to credibly defend genuinely liberal values. How can we ask for toleration without being willing to give it in return?            

There are other ways to fight the left. We can be firm and unbending in confronting its fascism without being nasty. And we can certainly find a better standard-bearer than an obnoxious reality-TV star whose political platform is long on populist showmanship and short on actual substance.


  1. Ace rant about what we all know and feel. But Trump is not the answer.

  2. I would say this. We didn't know....most of us....who Barack was and we don't know who the Donald is, but we DO KNOW who Hillary is and how could we vote for her?

    1. Heck, I knew exactly who Barack was, he said over and over and over again exactly what he planned to do, and if you did not know who he was, then you were not paying very good attention.

      I know exactly who Donald Trump is. He says it over and over and over again, just like Obama did.

      You have to pay attention to what he says, where he has put his money and what he has done.

      And too many people are blinded by some kind of dark light that must be spewing out from Trump's mouth.

      He is not conservative.

      He has consistently supported the left.

      He lies a lot.

    2. "I would say this."

      You would? Under what circumstances would you?

      "We didn't know....most of us....who Barack was and we don't know who the Donald is, but we DO KNOW who Hillary is and how could we vote for her?"

      The Gods of the Copybook Headings warn, "better the devil you know". 'Twas true in 2008, still true in 2016.

      * Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed: BLOCKQUOTE

    3. I'm not voting for Hillary either. Or Bernie. If it comes down to Trump v. Hillary or Trump v. Bernie, I'm voting conservative -- wherever I can find it.

      I understand many people interpret that as an implicit vote for Hillary. That's where people who are willing to vote for Trump (either enthusiastically or no) and I differ: While I've acknowledged the possibility, I am less convinced that this particular interpretation is right. Trump's unfavorables are so pronounced that I don't believe he'll win the general even WITH my vote.

  3. You clowns are just the type of d-bags that are going to put HRC in office. By self-identifying, at least the real conservatives will know who to blame.

    1. No real conservative supports Trump, let's get that straight. Before this campaign, Trump had a clear record of supporting government solutions over market ones and was a fan of progressive groups and policies. The documentation on both of these is extensive so the only people supporting him either are in denial about his past or secretly support what he will revert to if elected.

      HRC is a straight-up criminal and she is still orders of magnitude better than this despot-wannabe with a combover.

    2. lol get a load of this guy.

      In one breath claims that Trump is "no real conservative" and then claims how Clinton is going to be better than Trump. Compared to Clinton Trump is Ronald Reagan.

      The only reason you would say this while claiming to be then no true conservative would be if you're a Clinton or Bernie plant trying to stir up trouble. Get lost mole.

    3. Trumpkins, don't blame the real conservatives because they wouldn't drink the koolaid. We tried to warn you that Trump was a trojan horse and a terrible candidate. Now you want to give us a sh*t sandwich and insist that we eat it for our own good. Screw that, Trump and the GOPe can have each other. It's time for a party for people who respect the law and the US Constitution. Without that, the US is just another 2nd rate country.

    4. Keep deluding yourself. You'll kill your "true conservative movement" The times have changed. People have common sense. Your conspiracy theory about planned parenthood hold no water and you'll always be called racists by the left. Maybe in 3 generations after the illegal Mexicans settle in you'll get a "true conservative" POTUS. By then the country will be so changed that that conservative will make Donald look like the second coming of Ronald. R.

    5. Just a note: You don't have to believe in any conspiracy theories about Planned Parenthood to believe that our tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund elective procedures. Well-woman care? Maybe -- but even here, we can find a better alternative than an organization founded by a eugenicist that, yes, DOES murder innocent human beings whether you believe it then goes on to sell the body parts or not.

  4. Too stupid for words. The whole point of the primary season is to fight for your guy (Walker, Cruz and Fiorina for me) and then absolutely most important of all, back whoever comes out on top, or else you are handing it to the Alinsky-communist Imelda Marcos serial mega-criminal Hillary Clinton, and NOBODY CAN BE THAT FRICKING STUPID! I just want to say go to stinking Hell to every person who can't get over the the ridiculous mountains they keep making out of Trump molehills.

    Every time he reacts to criticism by doing something ridiculous like calling his critic ugly I say fine with me, because I know that it isn't just narcissism, that he feels that exact same visceral protectiveness for the country. THAT is what his blow-ups about killing the families of terrorists is about, to which I say it is about damned time. We have had eight years of a president who absolutely hates this country and face another four years of a woman who shares the exact same Islamophilic Alinsky communism. Two presidents in a row who are literal stinking communists, both direct acolytes of the leading American communist of the 20th century, and Stephanie is worried about Trump's lack of refinement.

    Sorry Stephanie, but your judgment is insane at the CRUDEST level, you and all the other "never Trumpers." Absolutely horrible. Destroyers. Vapid, ludicrous, and self-centered beyond belief. Your moral posturing will be offended. Too bad. How about the survival of the nation?

    1. You forgot arrogant, condescending, self centered and selfish.

      All the things that characterize the left that we despise.

      I am not a Trump fan, but he fights, so I can understand why Republican voters who don't spend their lives self masturbating on political blogs prefer him.

      You really don't think that Trump is worse than Hillary.

      You need to look into your heart and give up this irrational hate. Like it or not, Trump is going to be the nominee, and moving on through the stages of grief to acceptance is better for your and our mental health.

  5. Hillary = open borders, millions of illegals voting, a permanent Democratic party majority.

    At least two SCOTUS picks = outlaw of semi-automatic rifles possible handgun ban. End of concealed carry.

    I model Trump as Schwarzenegger. A self obsessed celebrity who has some conservative impulses but when confronted with resistance will fold on everything. The only chance I see is that he will carry out the "deal" on immigration and gun rights. The rest can be addressed and rectified later. If he doesn't, the alternative would have been Hillary, which would likely be the same or worse.

    Being from SoCal and watching trucks passing every day flying the MExican flag, not to mention building contractors forcing out Americans to hire Mexicans. I got pretty fed up of being referred to as a "Buchanian xenophile" or nativist by Republican operatives - read establishment conservatives with their heads up their arse - when I complained about it. Well here comes the whirlwind. I will vote for Cruz in the primary, but if Trump wins, I'll vote for a last desperate chance for American liberty over the certainty of it's downfall.

    1. If you look at what happened to Trump in Chicago and in Utah the people protesting him waved Mexican flags. If illegal immigration isn't fixed these violent thugs will do the same to anyone every time they don't get their way eventually America will be passing laws to help Mexicans instead of it's own citizens. It's completely crazy.

      I like Trump but likewise if Cruz got the nomination I would vote for him.

  6. John Kennedy said something like, those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable. The Tea Party movement a few years ago was the attempt at peaceful change. The illegal IRS activity that destroyed the Tea Party organizations was carried on without comment by and with the tacit approval of the Washington DC Republican Party establishment. Perhaps if more people had realized earlier that Marco Rubio was never going to be anything but a spoiler like John Kasich is now and united behind Ted Cruz, we would not be looking at what looks like the alternatives of Donald Trump winning enough delegates or a brokered convention which will ignore the votes of everybody who participated in the primaries to pick another McCain or Romney to lose another winnable race against a terrible Democrat candidate.

    Donald Trump is far from my first choice but he seems to be the choice of enough Republicans to win the primary, even if Republican insider shenanigans keep him from receiving the nomination. There are certainly aesthetic arguments against him but at this point he seems to be the best of the bad choices available.

    Will Trump lose against Hillary Clinton and lead to a wave defeat of down ticket Republicans? Well, he surprised a lot of people, including me, with how well he has done so far. One of the aesthetic arguments against Trump is that he is just a salesman. Well, he seems to be a very skilled salesman and he seems to be able to outmaneuver the dishonest and partisan media who are going to be the most powerful weapon the Democrats have against any Republican candidate.

    Trump's argument's strike me as simple minded but they seem to resonate with voters.

    The choice is whether you think four years of Hillary Clinton after the eight disastrous years of Barack Obama's fundamental transformation will mean the end of the country that you grew up in, changing permanently into something with the same name and shape but as different as the animated corpses in "The Walking Dead" are from the people who once inhabited those bodies.

  7. Well, Hillary is counting on you. Chump. Picking "what if" nits, and over-analyzing the mood of an electorate that is breaking all previous molds is a tedious exercise that media types perform to make money. I am tired of conservative media rationalizing its addiction to, and dependence upon, the present establishment status quo. Just be honest and declare yourself for the enemy.

  8. Trump is a mean-spirited blowhard. But (assuming he gets the nomination) to campaign against him and/or go for a third-party candidate gives the presidency to Hillary. We've seen how autocratic Obama liked to rule.... Hillary will make him look like choir boy.

    Hillary is incompetent, petty, vicious, criminal and has severe self-esteem issues. Letting her attain office because of some high-minded revulsion to Trump is fucking insane.

  9. Never Trump is fucking stupid. It should be Never Clinton. If Clinton wins you stupid fools don't understand it's all over. The supreme court will be gone, the 2nd will be under immense pressure so much so the NRA will have to fight tooth and nail to try and keep it intact but they'll be up against the DNC and the Supreme court. More importantly those 11 million illegal immigrants will be granted citizenship and a wall will not be built so more will continue to come the problem will never be solved. Once those illegals get citizenship and more come the DNC will forever have them as voters. Unless you cucks are banking on some great Mexican hope that these people will turn around and become "consertives" it's not going to happen. 4 years of Trump will get a wall built and a supreme court.

    1. If Clinton wins, the 2nd is gone as we know it. Her nominee will be a died in the wool liberal and 5-4 or 6-3 liberal decisions, including those on gun control, will be the standard. The NRA will be powerless to stop it. Even they can't override the USSC.

  10. But, this ignores the most important demographic. Trumps greatest applause line is about building a 2000 mile wall which people can easily cut holes in or dig under. If we spent enough billions to watch it, many would be caught the first couple of times they went through, but would just keep trying, because we send them back. If we imprison them it would bankrupt us, if we shoot them we are North Korea.

    Seriously understanding Trump involves understanding the supporters who want to accept and believe impossible promises, and don't just oppose illegal immigration in the abstract.

    1. >building a 2000 mile wall which people can easily cut holes in or dig under.

      Where do you find this bullshit? If it's made of the same type of stuff they used in Iraq around the green zone(concrete slabs) it can withstand explosive blasts. You aren't going to be able to get a hammer and bash through it. Like wise genius a wall goes into the ground it doesn't just sit on top level. It goes under the ground also to prevent people digging through. Where do you retards get your talking points from?

    2. Patrolled by drones.....Thing is this.....all that's necessary is the political will to act. Mexico knows this for a fact.

    3. I spend time every year hiking around in the area of the border between Mexico and the U.S. I think it is possible to build and patrol a fence that would greatly reduce the number of possible illegal aliens crossing into this country.

      Completely 100% effective? No more than any other laws are 100% effective. But enough to greatly reduce the problem? Yes, definitely.

      Of course, this has to be coupled with enforcement on the northern side of the border. This means deporting those caught--not catch-and-release--and an active effort to find illegals. Overwhelmingly police-state active? No, not needed: but greater than current efforts. (No federal aid to "sanctuary cities" would be an additional help.)

    4. Yet, you ignore the Isreali model which is VERY effective...that's the template we need to use a fortified zone 100 yards wide with more than a single "wall" but instead a series of belts...with mine fields and patrols to make sure it remains effective. What we have now is nothing...

  11. Sounds like this is written by a liberal woman.

    What terrible things has Trump advocated?

    a) Enforce immigration law (and reduce legal immigration)
    b) Re-negotiate so called "free trade" deals.

    Wow, how crazy and radical. Funny, how the majority of Americans agree with those two points.

    1. I don't think Trump will tarnish the Republican or Conservative brand. It's clear he's neither, and pubbies and conservatives will distance themselves from him. He'll have a presidency of mixed achievements, and life will go on.

    2. c) Kill suspected terrorists' families
      d) Rough up political opponents
      e) Leave SS and Medicare unchanged
      f) Touchback Amnesty
      g) Smoot-Hawley redux

      And that's before you get to the doctrinaire liberal positions he held on abortion, gun control, etc. just a few years ago. Has he actually changed his mind, or is he simply telling you what you want to hear?

  12. Trump will usher in a hard swing to the right. That's okay. Look at what's happening.

  13. Trump as president will come back down to earth, and the nation will have learned a lesson. With Hillary we learn much less (as with GWBush, who tried to be president of the entire nation, with the result that no one learned what conservative governance looks like, and we forgot what it was like under Reagan.)

    The key is that politics must educate the governed to make better choices. We need presidents that represent something, so that we can decide afterward if we agree or disagree with what was represented.

  14. By all means, don't vote for Trump but at least be honest about the outcome. Down ticket isn't going to save you from a Supreme Court that will be liberal for at least a generation. You think letting liberals control media and education was a mistake? Wait until you see a liberal court where their word quite literally becomes law.

    Whatever you think of Trump, if he is the nominee and he loses the general election, the country will shift in a very fundamental way that will make Obama's term seem like the good old days.

    I am honestly not trying to change your mind. I just want you to grasp exactly what your choice could mean. Even if every member of congress is GOP, they still cannot obstruct the USSC and a Clinton or Sanders nominee will be just another rubber stamp. With Obama showing the way on the use of executive orders and rule changes, congress will be irrelevant.

  15. Well written, we'll said Stephanie. I understand the passion of Trump supporters, but this idea that those of us who can't support him are somehow betraying the country... Look, I'm in the majority of primary voters who didn't vote for him. I can't see the future but my sense is he is just bringing about the death of the GOP, a party I have voted for for decades and which now I can't even belong to. He is not going to shrink government (remember that quaint notion Republicans claimed to believe in the day before yesterday?). He is going to continue the Imperial presidency, and probably make it worse (remember when we all thought Obama's welding of executive privilege was unconstitutional?). He has tyrannical tendencies and my guess is he'll use the full weight of the executive branch to go after his enemies. He doesn't understand the Constitution or have workable policy positions. Plus he's a blowhard jerk. I wouldn't hire him to mow my lawn. And - he won't win anyway. He came in at a moment of GOP ascendancy and one of the most winnable elections in decades and has literally brought the whole thing down. Stupid party. No I'm not going to support him.

    1. "this idea that those of us who can't support him are somehow betraying the country."

      You can try and justify your low information voting and listening to Glenn Beck or Cruz talking points all you like but at the end of it Donald doesn't do anything you're claiming.

      Just because Glenn Beck cries after talking about Trump doesn't make him correct.

      The fact is you may as well be a traitor. All the things you have said are true of Clinton except x it by 100.

      I'll never understand you idiotic cucks who don't understand what's actually at stake. The "stupid party" is people like you, nothing you said was factual or even matches what Trump has said. You're a sheep who listened to some bobble head.

    2. Ahem:

      If you like, I can find more. Everything I wrote about Donald Trump in the original post is based on things he's ACTUALLY said. I'm not a liar, a sheep, or an idiot, and I don't even listen to Glenn Beck. Please get over yourself.

  16. PS: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And thanks for all the hate!
    I suppose this means that you are eschewing traffic from Glenn's site? And you are doing it in the classic Progressive manner of stereotyping and name calling?
    This is my biggest complaint with the #NeverTrump meme; it seems conservatives have adopted the liberal belief that the end justifies the means. I actually find this more frightening than Trump.

    1. Nope. I'm eschewing the rude. See my PPS. And I'm sorry for not making that more clear.

  17. I've never understood what made any American favor Socialism ("Desperately Seekin' Stalin"?); but other than that, the attacks on people who simply disagree about candidates is either juvenile or pathological. It's also un-American.

  18. Hi Stephanie; I think you make some excellent points about Trump and I'm not a supporter. However as several others here have pointed out, I think there are repercussions to a Hillary presidency that will be irreparable. We know what we get with Hillary -- Trump still offers options. True that he is running his campaign like a reality TV star but while there can be argument as to whether he is as successful as he claims, I think he still has executive skills. We can only hope that as president Trump will put aside the demagoguery and govern more practically. I also think that right now conservatives need to be focused on why Cruz or Kasich are better candidates and not tearing down Trump. That only hurts us all.

    1. "I also think that right now conservatives need to be focused on why Cruz or Kasich are better candidates and not tearing down Trump. That only hurts us all."

      This, actually, is a fair comment. Tearing down Trump is NOT the only thing we should be doing. I will endeavor to explain the positives of our remaining options in the next week or so, but in the meantime, let me link to something that made me a little more inclined to like Cruz (who actually wasn't my first choice either):

      Here, Cruz actually shows the capacity to listen and TALK to people instead of manipulating them with a clever us vs. them narrative. If I had to describe my ideal candidate, that would be one characteristic I'd certainly prize.

  19. Greetings: I like your points and your prose. Thank Sarah for the link.

  20. Look...others have said this, many better than I. But I'll nevertheless make the point: a commitment to not vote for Trump is a commitment to letting Hillary win, and probably to the rest of the parade of horribles (loss of Congress, etc) that have been brandished by others in the movement to keep Trump out.
    If you want to endorse Cruz and work hard for his nomination--as, e.g., Mitt Romney has now done, despite his explicit declaratory preference for Kasich--then fine. But--to paraphrase another affable Donald (Rumsfeld)--you don't go to the polls with the candidates you'd like, you go to the polls with the candidates you have.
    Full disclosure--I'm a Cruz man (a Cruzan? ) and plan to support him until he either gains the nomination or he fails. And then, in the general election, I'll sigh, scrunch up my face, hold my nose, and vote for whoever the nominating process has laid upon my plate--just as I've done since I was eligible to vote.
    I've happily voted for Reagan twice, somewhat less happily voted for two diferent Bushes four times, and held my nose and voted for Dole (1996), McCain (2008) and Romney (2012). This election will be a happy one if it's Cruz, a nose-holder if it's Trump.
    But a bad Republican will still do less damage to the country than any Democrat who can actually win the nomination.
    And indeed, maybe there's where our differences lie: at the risk of second-guessing the motives of Trump's opponents, maybe I think the country is more important than the party, or even the so-called "conservative brand".
    As conservatives, we have spent my entire lifetime settling (with the notable exception of the Reagan years) for less. It's time to man up and do it again, if that's what it takes to avoid another four (or eight!) years of Democratic government in Washington.

    1. Well said sir...too bad those to whom it is directed won't read it...

    2. "But I'll nevertheless make the point: a commitment to not vote for Trump is a commitment to letting Hillary win..."

      As I noted above in another comment, this is the key issue on which you and I differ. While I acknowledged the possibility in the original post, I'm actually not fully convinced that my refusing to vote for Trump will scuttle the GOP's chances. Actually, I think Trump is going to do that on his own. The polls right now show him trailing both Hillary and Bernie in one-on-one match ups -- and right now, based on the facts on the ground as I see them, I don't see that changing once the primaries are over.

      "I've happily voted for Reagan twice, somewhat less happily voted for two diferent Bushes four times, and held my nose and voted for Dole (1996), McCain (2008) and Romney (2012). This election will be a happy one if it's Cruz, a nose-holder if it's Trump."

      I was just barely too young to vote in 1996, but from 2000 onward, I have always voted Republican. Believe me, I understand what it means to "hold my nose." But to me, there's a critical difference between those previous candidates and Donald Trump. As flawed as Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney were, I at least sensed that they actually cared about what was good for the country. I don't get that feeling from Trump. Instead, I feel that Trump cares about one thing only: the greater glory and power of Trump. Further, I don't trust him not to govern as a statist once he's in office; the fact that he's backed left-wing statists in the past does nothing to inspire confidence. Perhaps you feel differently -- but that's where *I* stand.

      "At the risk of second-guessing the motives of Trump's opponents, maybe I think the country is more important than the party, or even the so-called "conservative brand"."

      I find this pretty insulting. While I'm concerned about the "conservative brand," that concern ultimately flows from my deep and passionate anxiety about our country and about the values and profound philosophical insights upon which our country was based.

      This is how I see it: If Donald Trump is allowed to represent what is supposed to be the party of traditional American values, EVERY attempt to fight for those values will INSTANTLY lose all credibility.

      I'll reiterate and amplify what I said in the original post: How can we ask for toleration -- then turn around and back a man who, based on the things he's said and done, feels comfortable strong-arming people instead of persuading them? How can we argue for the rule of law -- then back a man who thrives on stirring up the masses?

      Bush Jr., McCain and Romney were all imperfect conservatives, but they were all, still, classically liberal in their temperaments. Trump doesn't seem to know what it means to be classically liberal; on the contrary, he seems to think the illiberal Alinksy approach should be universally adopted.

      You seem to think that Trump will simply be another "bad Republican." I see it differently. I think Trump will be the very leader who will usher in an all-out civil war.

      I'm not putting party or self over country. I'm trying to SAVE my country and the values I hold dear.

  21. U.S. Population by decade:

    1914 99 million
    1924 114 million 15
    1934 126 million 12
    1944 138 million 12
    1954 163 million 25
    1964 192 million 29
    1974 214 million 22
    1984 236 million 22
    1994 263 million 27
    2004 293 million 30
    2014 317 million 20

    2024 342 million
    2034 367 million
    2044 392 million
    2054 417 million

    End immigration now and work to decrease the population or just ask your grandkids to suck on a gas pipe of exhaust fumes.

  22. The Left has been kicking your ass for 50 years and you "true conservatives" just whine about how mean and vulgar Trump is. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

    1. This is why they're called "cuckservtives" Cuckoldry is a fetish and just like that they have the fetish of losing all the time. Everything is fine to the cuckservtives as long as they still have their blogs and comments sections to complain about how their rights are getting taken away. They get off on it. It's their sick fantasy always losing always being on the bottom getting walked all over.

    2. Ironic that it's a racist term.

  23. "This is my biggest complaint with the #NeverTrump meme; it seems conservatives have adopted the liberal belief that the end justifies the means. I actually find this more frightening than Trump."

    This doesn't compute. Ends justify the means is a reason to be FOR Trump - as many have argued, his means are pretty bad but the end is (maybe) not Hillary so get in line, hold your nose and vote for the person with an R after his name.

    I'm never Trump and, trust me, I know the pragmatic arguments. But he is a demonstrably transparent liar (which makes me wonder why his followers don't suspect they are being sold a bill of goods), he likes to intimidate his adversaries and appears (to me at least) to not have a qualm at using everything at his disposal to punish them once he's given the reigns of power. Plus a thousand other reasons he's not acceptable. Why did this happen? The GOP has Congress and most of the governorships and a horrific democratic opponent and picked this time to fall for the sales pitch of a guy who doesn't appear to know how government works except for a long history as a crony capitalist. We get the government we deserve but I don't have to vote for it. I'll vote down ticket and you can win without my help.

  24. You system tools make me laugh. I hope they're paying you for this BS. Conservative is a meaningless term now. The GOP has abandoned all the social issues that matter to half their base and the tax cut mantra is meaningless to those who have lost jobs or will lose jobs when the super rich oligarchs keep replacing workers with cheap foreigners. Take a look at Los angeles for the social cost. In the 1960s it was a virtual paradise of art deco and high living, and now it stinks like Mexico City with taco stands and open air markets that look and smell horrendous.

  25. #WhyNotTrump. The only non-Democrats who lie more than Trump are the Republican Establishment types. They are the proven demonstrably transparent liars. Anything GOPe types say come with expiration dates. The GOP is NOT a conservative party. It is an incumbent party, serving incumbent's political careers and mostly representing Washington, DC. The ONLY reason there is still a Republican Party at all is it's the only viable alternative to the [un]Democratic Party. Not sure how Trump could make things worse for the Republicans than the Republicans have made for themselves. Oh, wait...I know. They can reject the anti-GOPe candidate and help the [un]Democrats win.

  26. "theoretically, the Congress does have that power. In reality, however, its exercise results in government shutdowns -- and when the government shuts down, the Republicans are invariably savaged by the press. "So what? They should stand on principle!" Standing on principle is all well and good. Unfortunately, the electorate wants a government that "works," and ignoring this fact will do nothing to convince voters that we're fighting for the nation's best interests."
    Your man Ted Cruz was in favor of the Republican majority using its powers to the full, and taking the issue to the country through the press. So if Cruz's understanding opf politics is so fundamentally wrong-headed, why is it he so much better than Trump?

    1. Actually, Ted Cruz was not my first choice precisely because of his tactical errors. But I'll bite: Yes, Cruz IS better than Trump because, at base, he cares about persuading people instead of manipulating them through tribal appeals.

  27. Stephanie, nice summary of the current issues. I am more of the never Hillary orientation but I would like to hear more on this comment.

    “And that leads me to what bothers me the most about Trump: his rhetoric. The ugly things he says and the ugly things he promotes are things I don't want associated with the conservative label. There's fighting political correctness and then there's just being an asshole -- and Trump has frequently slipped into that second bracket.”

    When you say “There's fighting political correctness and then there's just being an asshole..” It suggests there’s a middle ground. Now, of course there is the category of “just being an asshole” with an emphasis on the “just” part which is certainly true, but it leaves the question of whether we can fight political correctness effectively, without being open to the charge of “asshole-ery”.

    Let’s take immigration as an example. You said “We are not obligated to throw open our doors to everyone, and we are fully within our rights to tighten the spigot if we feel that serves our national interest.” You say this as if it were a universal truth, requiring no further argument, but from the perspective of the left this is not a given. By the lefts moral compass those who are self serving or self-interested are assholes, so even if you soften the language, you won’t avoid the charge, as long as you are acting in the interests of the USA.

    When you consider the moral equation that political correctness forces you into, it’s easy to see why the left is winning the argument over immigration. Political Correctness forbids speaking of immigrants in a negative or disparaging way. Illegal aliens must be referred to as “undocumented workers”, they must be described as “hard workers just looking to help their families” or “seeking to gain the better life”. With this framing the moral equation becomes the “hard working noble native” seeking to upgrade his/her life pitted against the self serving nativist, looking to keep all the good stuff for themselves.

    When Trump challenges this framing by suggesting these aren’t the best people Mexico has to offer coming north, he is disparaged as speaking ugly or as being an asshole. When Trump says we need a wall to control he drug dealers, the cartel people the human smugglers, and yes the ‘rapists’ who rape 80 percent of those traveling north, he directly challenges the lefts moral framing.

    Stephanie, perhaps “We can be firm and unbending in confronting its [the lefts] fascism without being nasty” but I doubt we can win the illegal immigration argument without reframing the moral equation and that just might require a bit of directness.

    1. Thank you for your civil response. You raise an excellent question I will do my best to answer.

      I think the key issue on which this whole discussion of "tone" turns is our personal estimation of the size of the unpersuadable left. I don't want to speak for you, but I'm guessing your estimate is larger than mine.

      There is no question that said unpersuadable left has managed to grab hold of some very hefty megaphones -- and has consequently made the explication of conservative views extraordinarily taxing and risky. But those megaphones? I think they make that left seem more numerous than it actually is.

      Allow me to deploy a personal example to explain what I mean: When my brother - also a conservative - married my very lovely sister-in-law a few years ago, she was a pretty convinced Democrat. Now? She is still left-leaning -- but also somewhat less convinced. How did this happen? Matt didn't "water down" his political beliefs -- but he expressed them within the context of a loving and attentive relationship. He LISTENED to his wife's concerns and acknowledged them -- then turned the tables and explained his own worries. He was committed to the truth -- but also to having an actual human conversation.

      Now obviously, we can't marry every Democrat-leaning voter we come across. But I think the relationship principle my brother's marriage makes manifest IS more generally applicable. That's why I mentioned the importance of going out into the community -- of building around and under. If we make an active effort reach out to people - instead of depending on the unreliable media - we can put a face on conservatism that ISN'T as scary and threatening WITHOUT jettisoning the facts.

    2. Thanks for the response but I must say I was surprised. My surprise makes me think I didn’t communicate very well.

      My concern is not so much persuading the left as understanding how a solid conservative, well read and a good thinker as you are, could end up where you are relative to Trump. I read your piece and was struck by your conclusion:

      “And that leads me to what bothers me the most about Trump: his rhetoric. The ugly things he says and the ugly things he promotes are things I don't want associated with the conservative label. There's fighting political correctness and then there's just being an asshole -- and Trump has frequently slipped into that second bracket.”

      I pick this out because as you say it is “what bothers me the most about Trump: his rhetoric”. I should also point out that I have heard the same sentiment from others, so I think it is an important point. For those others, it often comes down to how the left has characterized what Trump said, more than what he actually said. Those others are just average ‘walk around’ people so I am not surprise their information is filtered. I would be surprised if that were true of you.

      My concern is that we of the conservative persuasion are allowing ourselves to be put into a box which requires us to talk in such a way that we can not be misunderstood or mischaracterized. I think it was Karl Popper who said "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." And I think he was right.

      I realize now that I should have first asked for an example where Trump has slipped from fighting political correctness into becoming just an asshole. I assumed you were referring to Trumps use of the term ‘rapist’ or ‘Muslim’ but perhaps I was wrong. Are there any others? and are those the main issues?

    3. Here is an example of what i am talking about.

      Theodore "Theo" Olson, a special education teacher at Como Park High School in St. Paul, Minn., was placed on administrative leave March 9 over two posts he wrote on Facebook about student discipline in the school district.

      The posts were deemed offensive by former school board candidate turned Black Lives Matter activist Rashad Turner who reportedly accused Olson of being a racist. Turner said Olson’s posts show he is “the epitome of a bad teacher” and a “white supremacist,” reported.

      According to the website, Olson wrote on Facebook, “Anyone care to explain to me the school-to-prison pipeline my colleagues and I have somehow created, or perpetuated, or not done enough to interrupt? Because if you can’t prove it, the campaigns you’ve waged to deconstruct adult authority in my building by enabling student misconduct, you seriously owe us real teachers an apology. Actually, an apology won’t cut it.”

      "Phones and iPad devices, used for social media and gaming," wrote Olson. "There have always been rules for ‘devices,’ and defined levels of misconduct. Since we now have no backup, no functional location to send kids who won’t quit gaming, setting up fights, selling drugs, whoring trains, or cyber bullying, we’re screwed, just designing our own classroom rules.”

      The group, Black Lives Matter St. Paul, charged that Olson portrayed students as drug dealers and gang bangers in his Facebook posts about a lack of district support in discipline matters, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Black Lives Matter had threatened a “shut-down action” at the school if Olson was not fired, but the group did not follow through with it after Turner reportedly met with St. Paul superintendent Valeria Silva.

    4. Here's a second example.The first was Racism, this one goes to Sexism.

      March 22, 2016
      The Washington Post reporter who — based on a single word, "beautiful" — said Trump "hit on" her.
      At 2:34 yesterday, WaPo's Karen Attiah tweeted:
      So. I got hit on today by Donald Trump.
      No context. No detail. It wasn't until 7:02 PM that she put up a column: "I asked Trump a policy question. Then he called me 'beautiful.'" Trump had been talking with a group of WaPo editors for over an hour and:
      As the meeting ended and we were walking out of the room, I thanked Trump for taking my question. He turned to me and said, “I really hope I answered your question,” and added casually with a smile, “Beautiful.” I was stunned. I didn’t say thank you, and I don’t think I smiled. He then walked out to meet with my Post colleagues briefly before heading to the elevator. I stayed in the conference room for a few minutes as it sunk in that the potential GOP nominee for president thought it was okay to comment on my appearance. Did he just say that?
      The first thing I need to know is, what was Attiah's response to his "I really hope I answered your question"? If she said "yes, thanks" or nodded or gave any kind of positive response, then "beautiful" would tend to mean "Great" as in I'm glad you're satisfied with my answer.

      It's at least ambiguous. I can understand the psychology of a woman wondering if she was just called beautiful, but this was a very particular woman, a reporter who seems eager to hurt Donald Trump. She stayed in the conference room thinking... exactly what? That she could immediately tweet out "I got hit on today by Donald Trump."

    5. Hey, jls: Just want to let you know that I'm not ignoring you. I'm just away from my desk today. :) I fully intend to respond to your concerns, however, so stay tuned!

  28. I'm talking about listening to folks like Mike Rowe, who know where the solid, secure, decently paying work that doesn't require a college education can still be found.

    An example of solid, decently paying work would be masonry. If you look in any locale with a sufficient Hispanic immigrant population (legal or illegal), most masonry is done by Hispanics.

    Masonry is a skilled profession, but it's hard and repetitive work. An American crew will not find traction where they have to compete with laborers who will happily live six-up in a two-bedroom apartment.

    There are other ways to fight the left. We can be firm and unbending in confronting its fascism without being nasty.

    Unfortunately, it's quite nasty to suggest that American crews should not have to compete with laborers who happily live six-up in a two-bedroom apartment. We're not talking about American's who won't work for Mike Rowe wages, we're talking about Americans having to work for third-world wages.

    Americans do not have to work for third-world wages if they do not have to directly compete with third-world laborers. However, Americans will look to socialism if they cannot find work where they can afford a family without living in 332 sq. ft.

    For what it's worth, it helps to compare Trump to Obama. Obama and Trump are both ciphers who hit the amygdala of their supporters. One is the savior of their supporters' most important values, and the other is an outsider who changes the entire language of political discourse.

    (The description works either way. This is what populism looks like.)

  29. One big problem is that with Trump, you don't know WHAT the heck you are getting. Between his unfamiliarity with the issues, his changing his mind/flip flopping, and the Dems getting a fast one over on him, you could end up with MORE amnesty, abortion and govt spending with him than with Hillary! But the most glaring problem with him is that he is an almost sure loser in the general. And I think it would be most unpleasant--horrific--to have 4 or 8 years of Prez Hillary.

  30. What you don't understand about us Trump supporters is we don't care what you think anymore. As the Donald says, we are tired of losing, tired of taking the blame for things we did not do. Call us whatever names you want, we don't care. That's what pissing you Cucks off. you still care and wonder why we don't. This country is f'd anyway. we are going down fighting and could care less what you think.

    Also, career tip, if you are only making $30k a year, perhaps you drop the blogging and get and take a second job so you can get more of those cheap Chinese panties you love.

  31. And now a more general note:

    I didn't reply to everyone because I can't. I WOULD like to ask that everyone here read the comments I DID leave and consider them in good faith.

    I don't believe I attacked anyone save Trump -- and even then, I attacked him on the substance AFTER giving due respects to the anxieties he represents. In return, some of you have chosen to mock me and call me names. Fine -- that's your choice, and I will let it speak for itself.

  32. Good article, and I agree with all your reservations regarding Trump. But I have one objection, why didn't you mention the most obvious anti Trump, Ted Cruz. He still has a real chance to beat Trump, and is a very sound Tea Party liberty candidate.

    1. If I started talking about the alternatives, the length of this post would've gotten ridiculous. Don't worry, though: I intend to write a post on Cruz sometime next week. ;)

  33. To those people who think that Hillary would be worse than Trump:

    I agree with you that Hillary is a felon, who is completely unfitted to hold any office of honor or trust, public or private. I also understand that Hillary is a left wing ideologue, a disciple of Alinsky, and far to the left of her husband, Bill.

    I understand that Hilliary’s election will result in Anthony Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court being occupied by a Mexican Lesbian Communist Dwarf who will vote against first and second amendment rights, and for forcing school children to participate in homosexual orgies. I would also remind you that the conservatives on the Supreme Court were unable to block the most blatantly unconstitutional legislation ever, Obamacare, thanks to the Dirty Little Coward.

    I understand all of that. On the other hand, I think that the House will remain in Republican hands, and that the Senate, even if the Democrats take control this year, will revert to Republican control in 2018. I also believe that the Republicans in the House and the Senate will oppose Hillary's agenda, and will not give her many legislative victories.

    The Donald, if he were President, would, according to his own statements, present a legislative agenda little different from Hillary’s. As a deal maker, and a friend and confidant of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (yes, I know he will retire, but Schumer will take his place and is also a Trump buddy), Trump, having no conservative ideas in his head will be rolled by the Democrats in Congress. Republicans split by party loyalty, and by their own craven sucking up to The Donald, will be unable to mount an effective resistance to him. The damage will be tremendous.

    Conservatism will be discredited and driven from the public arena. When the whole thing blows to smithereens. Caused by a recession that is overdue, the opposition party will be Bernie’s socialists who will proceed to turn the United States into Venezuela.

    I fear Hillary, but I fear the Donald more.

  34. I have been asked what should be done about Trump. I wish I had a good answer. I don't.

    To me the puzzle isn't Trump, his egomania and character as a flim-flam man explain everything about him.

    What I cannot explain is the vast number of his Trumpeters, and the strength of their convictions. Trump himself said of them that he could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue and they would still support him.

    I have seen their comments all over the internet whenever The Donald is criticized. It seems to me that they believe in the image that they themselves have created of a messiah who will smite their enemies, right the injustices that have been done to them, and lead them into the promised land. Needless to say, that image and reality coincide at precisely zero points.

    I am reminded of an aphorism by Charles MacKay who wrote, aptly enough, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" in the Preface to the Edition of 1852 he wrote:

    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

  35. I fully expect that if Trump is nominated, the media and the Democrats (which are one and the same thing) will set off a VEI 8 supervolcano of anti-Trump mud. It will be all Trump all the time on every network.

    You will hear about all of his frauds and the widows and the orphans he ripped off. You will here about every adultery, and every divorce. You will hear about his numerous bankruptcies. And, you will hear every one of his vulgarities, and his stupidities. You will reach the point where you break out in hives if you see or hear his name.

    And, no, Hillary’s felonies will get no airtime at all.

    Right now the all time record low vote for a presidential election with only 2 serious candidates, is 1964, when Barry Goldwater garnered 38.5% of the vote. I think that will set the over/under for Trump. I am also expecting record low turnout, a wipeout of Republican candidates for Senate, and a possible change in control of the House.

  36. I have more, but I will stop there. before I sign off, I want to congratulate Stephanie S. for a cogent and well argued essay. I wish I could give her some good news, but I can't. Be of good cheer Stephanie, God loves you.

  37. To set the tone:
    ( )
    Joseph Sobran (1946–2010) was senior editor of National Review for 18 years, a writer, and syndicated columnist.
    === ===
    Democracy has proved that the best way to gain power over people is to assure them that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.
    === ===

  38. There is a fundamental error talking about the Republican or Democrat Party. That is referring to voters as if they are part of the "Party". This is like referring to Walmart shoppers as being part of "Walmart".

    You are a member of a party only if you have been/are elected or appointed in that party and are giving at least a few thousand dollars each year in support. You are in that party because you want to direct what government does to set regulations, spend money on your businesses, and to convert your personal position into cash.

    Each party's presentation to the public is about policy: ethics, morals, and grand issues. This is a cover story for the economic interests of the true party. Both parties are flexible coalitions of people who can win votes or who want to buy results from the government.

    Primaries, elections, and voting are used by the parties to:
    * Mollify the public with a feeling of participation and self-rule
    * Raise more money from smaller, ideological contributions
    * Identify those within the parties who have the knack for the
    most sincere sounding lies and for getting votes.

    The Dems have a system of super-delegates and the proportional award of ordinary delegates. This assures that the choice of the Dem party will be nominated. Obama surpassed Hillary for the 2008 nomination because he won over the party, not because he won more ordinary delegates.

    The Pubs have it a bit harder. Pub voters are more fragmented than the Dems and the Pub party has to maintain the fiction that many views are accepted. The strategy this year was to support many candidates who would split the votes in the primaries, allowing Jeb! Bush to win a plurality of the delegates with his deep funding for political operatives and advertisements.
    - - Trump upset this plan, but will face the bureaucracy of the Pub party in rulemaking and arm twising at the convention, likely to give the nomination to a party favorite.

    The Pub party is a marketing division of the Dem dominated Uniparty. It makes noise but accomplishes almost nothing. There are no official plans or projects to win public sentiment and actually take some control.

    * The Dems have numerous protest factions to drive public commentary and dominate the news. Where are the similar groups supported by the Pubs? Why haven't the Pubs bought a network to present the other side of stories?

    * Where are the official and announced plans to run the country differently:
    - No alternative to Obamacare, only the promise of repeal now fading away.
    - Noise but no action on deficits and the budget. Pubs talk about cutting spending, then increase it along with the Dems. They don't try to advertise their supposed fiscal policy.
    - What is the "Republican" or "Conservative" policy? The party has chosen not to publish, define, and explain. So, one can be a Pub without supporting any particular agenda.
    - Where are the official educational efforts to explain better policies to support future elections?
    - Where is the official Pub outrage at speech restrictions on college campuses?

    A Uniparty which merely ignored conservative policy would attract the outright anger of right-leaning voters. They would attempt to form an opposition party. The Pubs have served the purpose of attracting those voters to a stand-in party which in reality accomplishes very little.

    This is slowly being understood and accounts for the angry mood of 40% of the country. Trump is supported by this realization. We can only hope that he won't be a narcissistic dictator and will accomplish some dismantling of the leftist Uniparty machine.

    Even if he is the next elected dictator in the style of Obama, at least he will be scrutinized by a leftist press and will not have an established machine to multiply his powers. Hillary would have the support of the press and that established political machine.

    I like Ted Cruise better for his knowledge and fewer flaws. But, if anger and ignorance choose Trump, then I want Trump instead of Hillary.

  39. In our simple life, love plays a very specific role.Now we are able to make your love life healthy and it has no space for any type trouble. These all are possible with the help of AGBAZARA TEMPLE OF SOLUTION. He helped me cast a spell that brought my long lost lover back withing 48hours who left me for another woman. you can also contact him on ( ) or call him on +2348104102662 and be happy forever like am now with his experience.

    BETTY from USA