- Severe Trump critic sees the hypocrisy of other critics
- The 2012 autopsy of the Romney debacle, was a debacle itself
David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist, no fan of Trump before, and not particularly now, has the objectivity to call BS when it appears to him. The full article is worthy even as we disagree with some interpretations. But this paragraph we found particularly appropriate as regards leftist buzz about Trump conflicts of interest:
You Opposed Donald Trump, So Why Aren’t You Freaking Out?
Those who kept telling us that Hillary Clinton’s corrupt foundation and blatant favor-trading with the world’s most illiberal regimes were merely a conspiracy theory now act as if the republic will crumble if Trump’s hotel hosts the same Bahraini princes that were buying access in the Obama administration. The same people who told us Clinton’s emails were bull—- and a silly distraction are now horrified that former Gen. David Petraeus — who, like Clinton, shouldn’t be in any Cabinet, but who, unlike Clinton, actually paid a price for his mishandling of classified information — is under consideration for a position in the new administration.
Ah yes, we remember it well — the 2012 autopsy – the GOP establishment found out what the 2012 problem was and the solution for 2016.*
So its agreed, we didn’t know what we were talking about in 2008, 2012 or 2016.
Frank Cannon and Terry Schilling writing at The Federalist have a very worthwhile article about what led to the Trump victory . We would have left out the “might” part. (excerpts)
Ignoring The GOP Establishment’s Advice Might Have Been Trump’s Smartest Move
Based off the advice given in the GOP’s 2012 autopsy, one would have expected a candidate such as Donald Trump to stand little chance of winning in 2016.
Back in early 2013, the future of the Republican Party looked bleak — or so we were told. “Demographics are destiny,” Washington pundits gleefully parroted ad nauseum. “Republicans may never win a presidential election again!” The sound defeat of Mitt Romney, whom the GOP establishment regarded as The Perfect Candidate™, could only mean the beginning of a permanent Democratic majority.
(snip)
Amidst the doom and gloom, the Republican National Committee commissioned a report, widely dubbed an “autopsy,” which recommended several changes to facilitate a victory in 2016. According to the report authors, Republicans needed to “modernize the party,” become more “inclusive and welcoming,” and “do a better job connecting people to our policies.”
It encouraged party leaders to spend more effort on outreach to minorities, and endorsed support for comprehensive immigration reform to appeal to Hispanics, while arguing social issues ought to be de-emphasized, so as not to seem “intolerant” to young people. It also took no issue with the GOP’s bland economic messaging, despite Romney famously losing the “cares about people like me” question by a whopping 63 points.
Based off the advice given in the autopsy, one would have expected a candidate such as Trump to stand little chance of winning in 2016. Trump took a hard line on immigration, denounced “political correctness,” and made his opposition to abortion a key part of his campaign.
So how could such a result have happened? For answers, one need only consult another report written in 2013 by the American Principles Project (APP), countering the RNC’s autopsy. According to APP, the RNC autopsy report had two serious flaws: 1) it failed to acknowledge the unpopularity of the standard GOP economic message as best exemplified in the Romney campaign, and 2) it falsely assumed that abandoning socially conservative positions would be advantageous for Republicans. Trump’s victory in 2016 — and his ability to build the winning Republican coalition that Romney could not — proved APP right on both counts.
(snip)
That Trump’s approach was more successful than Romney’s should not be a surprise. As the APP report pointed out, attempting to call a “truce” on social issues rarely ends well for conservatives, since it leaves the door wide open for left-wing attacks:
Smartly recognizing this, Trump realized the only way to respond was to fight back, and he did so very effectively. In fact, information Google News Lab released after the election revealed abortion was one of the two most searched topics in connection with Clinton and Trump, as well as being the top-searched policy issue in every Midwestern state—states that voted Republican for the first time in decades. Far from hurting him, Trump’s pro-life advocacy was likely critical to his victory.
Trump was not afraid to attack Hillary for her extremism on social issues, and it paid off. In addition to winning working-class whites in record numbers and outperforming Romney with Hispanics and African-Americans, Trump performed exceptionally well with evangelicals and even Catholics, many of whom likely felt Clinton’s support for LGBT supremacy at the expense of religious freedom put their very livelihood at risk. Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics explained this eloquently:
Of the sixteen + candidates seeking the Republican nomination this year, we think maybe only three or four other than Trump would have had the instinct to attack aggressively rather than be careful and be defensive, and to speak to working men and women of all colors. The others would follow the autopsy plan, to their death.
True, Trump got a lot of cooperation from the media, they just didn’t know they were giving it. They were even more deluded than the GOP establishment that produced the infamous autopsy to justify their next pick. The media thought they were exposing Trump, and they were, but not in the way they thought, as they helped Trump’s message resonate in spite of their snideness. They also did not understand they were exposing and undermining their own credibility. They were appalled by Trump, legions of voters applauded Trump.
It is a very good article, very important for current GOP leadership to internalize.
R Mall
