Dennis Prager of National Review recently released a post arguing that President Trump is the conservative hero Republicans looked for during the Obama years. To Prager, Donald Trump has saved America from certain destruction and his conservative initiatives are worth the cost of imperfection. In his view, Never Trump holdouts are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In actuality, he is wrong on all counts.
The first charge he makes is that "They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake. While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do." Prager is not wrong that Never Trump conservatives differ from Trumpists in this regard. However, this assertion that there is an existential battle for the fate of the nation is hyperbolic silliness.
Yes, there are big policy differences between the Republican vision for the country and what Hillary Clinton ran on last year. That said, minute policy differences- especially domestic policy differences- pale in comparison to the larger existential questions that Trump raises, rather than Clinton. Clinton, as I have argued before, represented more or less a continuation of the politics of normalcy. She may have been shady at the core, but her scandals fell within the realm of normal politics.
Trump, on the other hand, is the one who is destroying American political institutions and displays contempt for the underlying American political philosophy. It is Trump who wants to kill the filibuster in the Senate for everything, as he sees it as an example of institutional checks and balances that are "archaic" (meaning they stifle his ability to act). It is Trump who routinely expresses admiration for Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, Kim Jong-un, and numerous other autocrats, while criticizing Angela Merkel, NATO, and other liberal allies. Trump, ever the CEO at heart, does not have the patience for, or understanding of, the American system of government. He does not understand why he cannot get everything he wants all of the time, nor does he understand the underlying purpose for such "archaic" measures as checks and balances. It is this commitment to limiting government and restraining the Leviathan that is the genius of the American system of government. And it is this genius that Trump does not and cannot comprehend.
If there is an existential battle for America's soul, then it is supporters of Trump who are on the wrong side. Clinton, for all of her faults and liberalism, would not have undermined American political institutions or attempted to turn the presidency into something it is not: an elected monarchy. Clinton may have introduced a few things that conservatives do not like, but small policy differences matter far less than differences over the basic questions about our system of government.
Prager's second point is that Trump has truly become the conservative president that the base has desired since 2009.
The first charge he makes is that "They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake. While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do." Prager is not wrong that Never Trump conservatives differ from Trumpists in this regard. However, this assertion that there is an existential battle for the fate of the nation is hyperbolic silliness.
Yes, there are big policy differences between the Republican vision for the country and what Hillary Clinton ran on last year. That said, minute policy differences- especially domestic policy differences- pale in comparison to the larger existential questions that Trump raises, rather than Clinton. Clinton, as I have argued before, represented more or less a continuation of the politics of normalcy. She may have been shady at the core, but her scandals fell within the realm of normal politics.
Trump, on the other hand, is the one who is destroying American political institutions and displays contempt for the underlying American political philosophy. It is Trump who wants to kill the filibuster in the Senate for everything, as he sees it as an example of institutional checks and balances that are "archaic" (meaning they stifle his ability to act). It is Trump who routinely expresses admiration for Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, Kim Jong-un, and numerous other autocrats, while criticizing Angela Merkel, NATO, and other liberal allies. Trump, ever the CEO at heart, does not have the patience for, or understanding of, the American system of government. He does not understand why he cannot get everything he wants all of the time, nor does he understand the underlying purpose for such "archaic" measures as checks and balances. It is this commitment to limiting government and restraining the Leviathan that is the genius of the American system of government. And it is this genius that Trump does not and cannot comprehend.
If there is an existential battle for America's soul, then it is supporters of Trump who are on the wrong side. Clinton, for all of her faults and liberalism, would not have undermined American political institutions or attempted to turn the presidency into something it is not: an elected monarchy. Clinton may have introduced a few things that conservatives do not like, but small policy differences matter far less than differences over the basic questions about our system of government.
Prager's second point is that Trump has truly become the conservative president that the base has desired since 2009.
Had any Never Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally Assad after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall; appoint a U.N. ambassador who regularly condemns the U.N. for its moral hypocrisy; restore the military budget; and work on lowering corporate tax rates, among other conservative achievements — that Never Trump conservative would have been jumping for joy. So why aren't anti-Trump conservatives jumping for joy?
First of all, this list is an exceedingly optimistic and overly selective. Regarding the Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch's appointment is a Republican victory that belongs to Mitch McConnell. It was McConnell who, for better or worse, kept that seat open for over a year in the face of a ceaseless barrage of fire. Trump merely had the political sense to keep a key promise that won him the support of many reluctant Republicans. All that said, the Gorsuch appointment is the only victory the Republicans have had in this administration.
Most everything else here is either overhyped or simple nonsense. Obamacare is not going to be replaced, at least with the current version of the ACHA. The CBO score will scare off at least 3 senators and even rank-and-file foot soldiers, like Tom Cotton, have expressed skepticism over it. The same is probably true of tax reform- depsite Paul Ryan's interest in advancing tax reform, it is being buried by everything else that is going on. The Republican government seems to be flawed beyond even what Conditional Party Government would predict.
Anyone who thinks Clinton would not have bombed Syria is simply delusional; on foreign policy, she is as much of a neoconservative as anyone. Nikki Haley's appointment as UN Ambassador was a great choice, but her loyalty is not to Trump. As UN Ambassador, she is challenging Putin and asserting American leadership at a time when Trump is doing neither. Maybe she is challenging the "moral hypocrisy of the UN", but she is also challenging Russia while the administration she serves is taking steps on foreign policy that can only be described as pro-Kremlin. Trump is the one who has rhetorically blasted NATO allies for "failure to pay up" and has described the alliance using his buzzword of "archaic," as usual. And President Trump's inexperience has culminated in Chancellor Merkel solemnly concluding that America can no longer be trusted, as an ally.
All in all, conservatives should be satisfied with the appointment of Gorsuch, and that is really about it. Trump has, thus far, been disastrous for our foreign policy and proven to be completely inept at governing, even with unified government. The cabinet that Prager praises as "the most conservative ever" is also the most incompetent ever. Tillerson, Carson, DeVos, and Ross all lacked any experience running a government department and/or the requisite policy experience in their field. Conservative beliefs are great, but a Cabinet official should have experience in government and be fluent in the policy knowledge of their field.
Prager's last charge is that anti-Trump conservatives are holding out because they would be embarrassed at dinner parties. Again, this is rank nonsense. While there is certainly a cultural divide between Trump supporters and opponents, the reasons for conservatives to continue opposing him are legion. Between the endless scandals, lack of message, and foreign policy disasters, there are ample reasons for smart conservatives to stay away from the mess. When the smoke clears from the Trump presidency, the only Republicans left with any clout will be those who did not give in to the siren song of Trumpism and presidential power. That is not a "cultural divide argument", it is a stark political reality.
Most everything else here is either overhyped or simple nonsense. Obamacare is not going to be replaced, at least with the current version of the ACHA. The CBO score will scare off at least 3 senators and even rank-and-file foot soldiers, like Tom Cotton, have expressed skepticism over it. The same is probably true of tax reform- depsite Paul Ryan's interest in advancing tax reform, it is being buried by everything else that is going on. The Republican government seems to be flawed beyond even what Conditional Party Government would predict.
Anyone who thinks Clinton would not have bombed Syria is simply delusional; on foreign policy, she is as much of a neoconservative as anyone. Nikki Haley's appointment as UN Ambassador was a great choice, but her loyalty is not to Trump. As UN Ambassador, she is challenging Putin and asserting American leadership at a time when Trump is doing neither. Maybe she is challenging the "moral hypocrisy of the UN", but she is also challenging Russia while the administration she serves is taking steps on foreign policy that can only be described as pro-Kremlin. Trump is the one who has rhetorically blasted NATO allies for "failure to pay up" and has described the alliance using his buzzword of "archaic," as usual. And President Trump's inexperience has culminated in Chancellor Merkel solemnly concluding that America can no longer be trusted, as an ally.
All in all, conservatives should be satisfied with the appointment of Gorsuch, and that is really about it. Trump has, thus far, been disastrous for our foreign policy and proven to be completely inept at governing, even with unified government. The cabinet that Prager praises as "the most conservative ever" is also the most incompetent ever. Tillerson, Carson, DeVos, and Ross all lacked any experience running a government department and/or the requisite policy experience in their field. Conservative beliefs are great, but a Cabinet official should have experience in government and be fluent in the policy knowledge of their field.
Prager's last charge is that anti-Trump conservatives are holding out because they would be embarrassed at dinner parties. Again, this is rank nonsense. While there is certainly a cultural divide between Trump supporters and opponents, the reasons for conservatives to continue opposing him are legion. Between the endless scandals, lack of message, and foreign policy disasters, there are ample reasons for smart conservatives to stay away from the mess. When the smoke clears from the Trump presidency, the only Republicans left with any clout will be those who did not give in to the siren song of Trumpism and presidential power. That is not a "cultural divide argument", it is a stark political reality.