Hillary: The Conservative Hope by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal,
No! This isn’t a satirical piece. Bret Stephens, possibly the Wall Street Journal’s nastiest anti-Trump/Cruz columnist, has done a ‘full monty’ in exposing his cynical political ideology.
It’s never been a tightly held secret that the Journal and its editorial board are the mouthpiece of the Washington establishment and the GOP donor class. And Stephens has been their lead attack dog throughout the current primary season.
Today’s column, though, shocks even those who’ve known exactly what he is… a sarcastic, arrogant, smug little weasel whose contempt for the GOP’s conservative/libertarian base knows no bounds.
“The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress”.
Yes! That’s Bret Stephens’ prescription for “saving ‘serious’ conservatism”: Elect Hillary Clinton and have a Republican Congress hold her “in check”!!!!
Hold that Democratic president in check! Mr. Stephens must, thus, be very satisfied at how the current “Republican Congress” has held Barack Obama “in check”.
And Stephens sneeringly notes,
“Conservatives still play the character card against Hillary Clinton, citing her disdain for other people’s rules, her Marie Antoinette airs, and her POTENTIAL LAW BREAKING (caps ours).”
By comparison, Mr. Stephens describes Trump as a
“serial fabulist, an incorrigible self-mythologizer, a brash vulgarian, and…a determined obfuscator (when it comes to his tax returns)”.
Wow! According to Stephens: Sure, Hillary has a few defects conservatives can highlight, but just look at all the lofty adjectives I can throw at your reprobate!
Oh, and Bret, did you say “potential” lawbreaking?
The Journal’s ‘star’ columnist concludes with this:
“Conservatives need to accept that most conservative of wisdoms—sometimes losing is winning, especially when it offers an education in the importance of political hygiene.”
Wow! Have we been on a winning streak these past 7 years! Did we forget to tell you that Bret is the Wall Street Journal’s towering intellectual Super Star?
DLH
There is no conservative hope with Hillary, none. Stephens maintains that a Democrat victory in November is merely the loss of another election and that “may be dispiriting.” DISPIRITING! My G*d does this guy know of Hillary, her ruthlessness and the fecklessness of the Republican leadership in Congress? His comments do not withstand Jindal’s.
One also needn’t care quite so much about the Republican Party as such, as if it were the personification of conservatism. Having to take a big bite of the proverbial nasty sandwich is nothing knew. Did we lose the right to call ourselves conservatives in response to the party being all in for”republicans” even worse than Trump (policy-wise) in order to win this or that legislative seat? Politicians from the states of Maine, Alaska and Illinois come to mind just as a start. And what of Bush’s steel tariff and other apostasies? And what of Republican Supreme Court appointments – Souter, Roberts/Kennedy? What of the undermining of conservatism by Boehner McConnell and Ryan FUNDING Obama’s legislative atrocities. When did we become compromised and unable to advocate?
The party for now is largely the residence of basic conservatives and the party structure has been conservatism’s faltering vehicle. Perhaps a new party is in order or one that puts actual demands on its standard bearers (that would be new). Given that alternatives existed, the party has been co-opted by irresponsible disconnected mobishness personified, able to take advantage of a large field of players in states with rules unresisted if not put in place by a mixed bag of elements within the party, perhaps even advocated by some establishment conservatives, for the most wrong-headed and superficial of reasons. Seriously — the concept of open primaries and awarding all delegates to plurality winners in primary elections, are the sort of rules made to order for subversion of a party to amorphousness at best. Which is possibly the situation we are in.
How conservative is Trump? Who knows, the platform battle and his continuing statements will tell. But one thing has been obvious for longer than Trump. Do not allow the presidential candidate so much power over party affairs, they are not the boss of us and their is no requirement to wave their flag. They should not be considered the standard bearer of the party or have direct personal influence over the party platform. The platform is the standard, Republican leadership as a whole are the standard bearers, the presidential candidate, given all that enters into producing that mess, is but one. There should be pledge requirements of the party nominee to support the party principles and, nomination notwithstanding, party members must be free to publicly call them to task at any time for the sake of the party. But those party people must answer to the rules and pledges as well.
As it stands now the election process responsibilities fall primarily on Trump’s supporters not conservatives per se because Trump has made no bankable pledge on anything (witness his proclivities), only undependable statements. Without Republican reforms conservatives should probably look to form a separate party in order to have one in the wings, endorse separately from the Republican machinations, run candidates or not depending on circumstances. It could be allied with the Republican party but conservative support of Republican or “Republican” nonsense is not required. There may be existing suitable third party conservative vehicles to this effect in some states, or operate to start as a political action committee while ballot positioning is sought. Republican establishment will oppose these efforts mightily offering nothing in return.
This may result in the Republican party rather than competing for conservative support, positioning itself as the “moderate’ party. Fine, that is what it is now essentially with conservative help. The RNC talks a conservative game on occasion, but its legislative leaders cooperate with Democrats, indeed are barely a drag on them, in their purpose to advance socialism. With only token resistance, Republican legislative leadership funds the Democrat’s cultural denigration.
Libertarians,if they pick Johnson as their standard bearer” are arguably no refuge for conservatives. So in the mean time Trump is less risky than Hillary or any possible replacement Democrat, but that does not mean Trump’s outlandish statements need be tolerated without response. He is the one who must make adjustments. He “adjusts” for general election support, conservatives are part of that general election, so adjust Donald.