Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Jean
  • 1 Post By Captainron

Thread: What Democrats know (and National Review forgot)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,431

    What Democrats know (and National Review forgot)

    January 25, 2016
    By Jared E. Peterson

    National Review’s attempted destruction of Donald Trump’s candidacy is its worst mistake in the journal’s long history. Whether it will result in the demise of the magazine – a significant part of Bill Buckley’s noble legacy – is uncertain but at least possible. If it does, the outcome will be regrettable but just.

    Attempting to destroy a candidate who, by far and for long, has been leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination is without precedent in the history of conservative journalism. It violates the fundamental precept of successful politics in electoral democracies, especially America’s two-party, coalition-dependent system.

    Any candidate who brings massive new positive interest in your party, and at the same time has the potential to take a big slice out of the opposition’s pie, is your friend. Do not insult him (and by inference his supporters). Instead, figure out how to turn this potentially fleeting gift into a stable electoral advantage that benefits the party’s ultimate nominee, be it the man who brought it or someone else.

    Why is it that Democrats understand this principle clearly, while the “best and brightest” among Republicans miss it so often? For month after month, Bernie Sanders has been peddling an electorally poisonous brew of warmed over Marxism and eat-the-rich revolution, and yet nary a nasty word has been directed at him or his deluded followers by Democratic Party leaders or their partisan journals.

    Could it be that Democrats understand much better than Republicans the obvious: that the only standard for success in electoral politics is winning, and a political party has no enemies among its supporters?

    Some of the authors of N.R.’s Trump hit piece claim that William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan would be horrified by Trump’s candidacy. They have the right verb but the wrong direct object: Reagan and Buckley would be horrified, but not by Trump. Rather, they would be horrified by the political stupidity of denouncing someone who has induced millions of Americans to watch the Republican debates and hear conservative arguments who otherwise would not have and, even more significantly, someone who increasingly appears to have a real chance of bringing back to the Republican fold many hard-pressed working-class and struggling middle-class voters, large numbers of whom have been beyond the party’s reach since Reagan.

    Allow me to suggest that N.R.’s editors and writers, instead of carrying torches and pitchforks to Trump’s castle, could better have spent their time honestly asking and answering the easy question: why has Trump happened?

    By now, four months and counting since he’s has been running away with the race, the answer should be obvious: it’s both his issues and his manner.

    On the issues, the single substantive position that catapulted Trump into the lead – and has kept him there – is illegal immigration. Trump was just one of the pack, and then he promised to deport the illegals and build a wall. He soared immediately to the top and has stayed there since.

    It can’t be said often enough or strongly enough: an enormous majority of regular Republican and conservative voters (and a substantial minority of “gettable” Democrats) are deeply disturbed by the apparent decision of America’s political and corporate elites to radically alter the cultural, ethnic, and political makeup of the country as a means of creating an endless supply of cheap labor (Republican elites) and dependable big-government votes (Democrat elites).

    That same overwhelming majority of Republican/conservative voters is furious at the party establishment’s multiple betrayals on the issue, from George W. Bush’s sneak-attack attempted amnesty to Marco Rubio’s apostasy on “comprehensive immigration reform” to Jeb Bush’s “act of love.” The leadership’s illegal immigration war on its voters created a massive opportunity for a Republican candidate to be clear, tough, and believable. Trump seized it. Maybe he too will betray us – as the voters must think by now – but the others already have.

    Trump only underscored his seriousness on the issue when he doubled down by suggesting at least a temporary halt to Muslim immigration. From Merkel to Cameron to Jeb Bush to Rubio, the Western establishment is trying to sell the notion that Muslim immigration to the West is benign, but a substantial and growing percentage of ordinary citizens are not buying it. And increasingly the elite’s substantively empty epithets – Islamophobe, racist, nativist – are met with the indifference they deserve. To ordinary citizens in the West, importing massive numbers of people from a culture most of whose values are anathema to us, including and especially their atrocious treatment of women, who account for about 99.99% of the acts of terror worldwide, and who want to transplant their 7th-century culture to us rather than assimilate to ours...such an influx doesn’t seem like the brightest idea.

    But it is not merely Trump’s stance on immigration that accounts for his rise. He speaks – in phrases and cadences familiar to the non-Ivy League-educated public – of unapologetic patriotism, returning manufacturing jobs to the America, and a desire to be president of the United States rather than of the world. All of this is welcome, and – the essence of the matter – not merely to regular Republican voters.

    And in style, Trump is gloriously indifferent to the elite’s P.C. rules – to which the Republican establishment has so cravenly caved – rules that spell out what people may think, what they may say, and how they must say it. Trump’s verbal style and P.C. indifference, which reads as “vulgar” to N.R. writers, is a breath of fresh air to an American public fretted with increasingly stifling restrictions on freedom of thought and public discussion.

    I don’t know whom I would choose if asked to pick the Republican nominee now.

    But I do know that Trump’s presence in the race, and his startling success thus far, should have provided a road map for the Republican nominee – for the issues, clarity, and boldness needed to prevail in the electoral climate of 2016. The positions Trump has taken and the forcefulness of his advocacy, if adopted by whoever the nominee is, could bring back the Reagan Democrats, and others, and could produce a substantial GOP presidential victory in the fall.

    N.R.’s demonizing Trump is worse than foolish. It’s political malpractice of the worst sort: a suicidal rejection of a great opportunity to expand the GOP presidential vote.

    National Review’s attempted destruction of Donald Trump’s candidacy is its worst mistake in the journal’s long history. Whether it will result in the demise of the magazine – a significant part of Bill Buckley’s noble legacy – is uncertain but at least possible. If it does, the outcome will be regrettable but just.

    Attempting to destroy a candidate who, by far and for long, has been leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination is without precedent in the history of conservative journalism. It violates the fundamental precept of successful politics in electoral democracies, especially America’s two-party, coalition-dependent system.

    Any candidate who brings massive new positive interest in your party, and at the same time has the potential to take a big slice out of the opposition’s pie, is your friend. Do not insult him (and by inference his supporters). Instead, figure out how to turn this potentially fleeting gift into a stable electoral advantage that benefits the party’s ultimate nominee, be it the man who brought it or someone else.

    Why is it that Democrats understand this principle clearly, while the “best and brightest” among Republicans miss it so often? For month after month, Bernie Sanders has been peddling an electorally poisonous brew of warmed over Marxism and eat-the-rich revolution, and yet nary a nasty word has been directed at him or his deluded followers by Democratic Party leaders or their partisan journals.

    Could it be that Democrats understand much better than Republicans the obvious: that the only standard for success in electoral politics is winning, and a political party has no enemies among its supporters?

    Some of the authors of N.R.’s Trump hit piece claim that William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan would be horrified by Trump’s candidacy. They have the right verb but the wrong direct object: Reagan and Buckley would be horrified, but not by Trump. Rather, they would be horrified by the political stupidity of denouncing someone who has induced millions of Americans to watch the Republican debates and hear conservative arguments who otherwise would not have and, even more significantly, someone who increasingly appears to have a real chance of bringing back to the Republican fold many hard-pressed working-class and struggling middle-class voters, large numbers of whom have been beyond the party’s reach since Reagan.

    Allow me to suggest that N.R.’s editors and writers, instead of carrying torches and pitchforks to Trump’s castle, could better have spent their time honestly asking and answering the easy question: why has Trump happened?

    By now, four months and counting since he’s has been running away with the race, the answer should be obvious: it’s both his issues and his manner.

    On the issues, the single substantive position that catapulted Trump into the lead – and has kept him there – is illegal immigration. Trump was just one of the pack, and then he promised to deport the illegals and build a wall. He soared immediately to the top and has stayed there since.

    It can’t be said often enough or strongly enough: an enormous majority of regular Republican and conservative voters (and a substantial minority of “gettable” Democrats) are deeply disturbed by the apparent decision of America’s political and corporate elites to radically alter the cultural, ethnic, and political makeup of the country as a means of creating an endless supply of cheap labor (Republican elites) and dependable big-government votes (Democrat elites).

    That same overwhelming majority of Republican/conservative voters is furious at the party establishment’s multiple betrayals on the issue, from George W. Bush’s sneak-attack attempted amnesty to Marco Rubio’s apostasy on “comprehensive immigration reform” to Jeb Bush’s “act of love.” The leadership’s illegal immigration war on its voters created a massive opportunity for a Republican candidate to be clear, tough, and believable. Trump seized it. Maybe he too will betray us – as the voters must think by now – but the others already have.

    Trump only underscored his seriousness on the issue when he doubled down by suggesting at least a temporary halt to Muslim immigration. From Merkel to Cameron to Jeb Bush to Rubio, the Western establishment is trying to sell the notion that Muslim immigration to the West is benign, but a substantial and growing percentage of ordinary citizens are not buying it. And increasingly the elite’s substantively empty epithets – Islamophobe, racist, nativist – are met with the indifference they deserve. To ordinary citizens in the West, importing massive numbers of people from a culture most of whose values are anathema to us, including and especially their atrocious treatment of women, who account for about 99.99% of the acts of terror worldwide, and who want to transplant their 7th-century culture to us rather than assimilate to ours...such an influx doesn’t seem like the brightest idea.

    But it is not merely Trump’s stance on immigration that accounts for his rise. He speaks – in phrases and cadences familiar to the non-Ivy League-educated public – of unapologetic patriotism, returning manufacturing jobs to the America, and a desire to be president of the United States rather than of the world. All of this is welcome, and – the essence of the matter – not merely to regular Republican voters.

    And in style, Trump is gloriously indifferent to the elite’s P.C. rules – to which the Republican establishment has so cravenly caved – rules that spell out what people may think, what they may say, and how they must say it. Trump’s verbal style and P.C. indifference, which reads as “vulgar” to N.R. writers, is a breath of fresh air to an American public fretted with increasingly stifling restrictions on freedom of thought and public discussion.

    I don’t know whom I would choose if asked to pick the Republican nominee now.

    But I do know that Trump’s presence in the race, and his startling success thus far, should have provided a road map for the Republican nominee – for the issues, clarity, and boldness needed to prevail in the electoral climate of 2016. The positions Trump has taken and the forcefulness of his advocacy, if adopted by whoever the nominee is, could bring back the Reagan Democrats, and others, and could produce a substantial GOP presidential victory in the fall.

    N.R.’s demonizing Trump is worse than foolish. It’s political malpractice of the worst sort: a suicidal rejection of a great opportunity to expand the GOP presidential vote.


    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...w_forgot_.html
    Judy likes this.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Captainron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,279
    I think it was the influence of evangelical voters that put the GOP into a tizzy. A huge windfall--propelling Reagan into the White House--- but suddenly, a new, powerful and vocal group that many establishment Republicans did not know how to integrate into a cohesive party dogma.

    So then Trump emerges. Another new force when they have not quite figured out how to handle the previous surge of interest. But moralistic social movements only succeed when a society is doing well materially; not when it is on the ropes, like now.
    Judy likes this.
    "Men of low degree are vanity, Men of high degree are a lie. " David
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    It shouldn't be integrated. For the most part we need to keep politics and religion separate.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. National Review: Gingrich Should Bow Out
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-13-2012, 03:50 PM
  2. National Review Defends Arizona Law
    By Texas2step in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2010, 09:36 PM
  3. National Review: Immigration Reform, for Real
    By Nouveauxpoor in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2007, 08:31 AM
  4. National Review Article Turn up the Heat
    By Gogo in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 07:23 PM
  5. National Review Immigration Reform Update
    By olivermyboy in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-16-2007, 10:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •