Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Bret Stephens on Donald Trump

Considering how much some of you respect that New York Times Upper West Side screaming liberal, Frank Bruni, today’s offering comes from a bona fide conservative.

Bret Stephens writes conservative foreign policy commentary for the Wall Street Journal. He is arguably the best foreign policy columnist writing today.  He is anything but a screaming liberal. As best I can tell, he does not live on the Upper West Side. Therefore, you are permitted to read what he writes. You will not be having your mind corrupted with thoughts of dubious provenance.

For the purposes of discussion, I will refrain from commenting on Stephens’ column on the rise of Donald Trump. I post his opinions in order to allow others to have a say on the question.

Stephens pulls no punches. His rhetoric, dare we say, resembles Trump’s:

If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling.

If you have reached physical maturity and still chuckle at Mr. Trump’s pubescent jokes about Rosie O’Donnell or Heidi Klum, you will never reach mental maturity. If you watched Mr. Trump mock fellow candidate Lindsey Graham’s low poll numbers and didn’t cringe at the lack of class, you are incapable of class. If you think we need to build new airports in Queens the way they build them in Qatar, you should be sent to join the millions of forced laborers who do construction in the Persian Gulf. It would serve you right.

A bit more substance please, Mr. Stephens.

He continues:

He conveys a can-do image. He is the bluntest of the candidates in addressing public fears of cultural and economic dislocation. He toes no line, serves no PAC, abides no ideology, is beholden to no man. He addresses the broad disgust of everyday Americans with their failed political establishment.

And so forth and so on—a parade of semi-sophisticated theories that act as bathroom deodorizer to mask the stench of this candidacy. Mr. Trump is a loudmouth vulgarian appealing to quieter vulgarians. These vulgarians comprise a significant percentage of the GOP base. The leader isn’t the problem. The people are. It takes the demos to make the demagogue.

What does it portend for the Republican Party? Stephens answers:

It says that we may soon have a conservative movement in which the American creed of “give us your tired, your poor” could yield to the Trumpian creed that America must not become a “dumping ground” to poor immigrants from Latin America, as if these millions of hardworking and God-fearing people are a specimen of garbage.

It says that a party that carries on about the importance of e pluribus unum and rails against the identity politics of assorted minorities is increasingly tempted to indulge the paranoid (and losing) identity politics of a dwindling white majority.

It says that a sizable constituency in a party that is supposed to favor a plain reading of the Constitution objects to a plain reading of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

It says that a movement that is supposed to believe in defending old-fashioned values and traditions against the assorted degradations of the postmodern left might allow itself to be led by a reality-TV star whose meretricious tastes in trophies, architectural and otherwise, mainly remind me of the aesthetics of Bob Guccione.

It says that a party that is supposed to believe in the incomparable awesomeness of America thinks we are losing the economic hunger games to the brilliant political leadership of . . . Mexico. It says that a movement that is supposed to believe in economic freedom doesn’t believe in the essence of economic freedom: to wit, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor.

It says that many of the same people who have bellyached nonstop for the past seven years about the cult-of-personality president currently in the Oval Office are seriously willing to consider another cult-of-personality figure on the off-chance he’s peddling the cure America needs.

Speaking as a leading voice in the conservative punditocracy, Stephens is optimistic that Republicans will, in the end, not nominate Donald Trump:

Republicans like to think of America as an exceptional nation. And it is, not least in its distaste for demagogues. Donald Trump’s candidacy puts the strength of that distaste to the test.

I offer these remarks with commentary. Feel free to offer your own.

And yet, when conservatives are attacking a candidate and liberals are sitting back enjoying the spectacle, you might give the matter some thought.

9 comments:

Scullman said...

Big surprise. Everyone at The National Review, from the janitor to Bret Stephens, to Jonah Goldberg on up, despise Trump.

Tell me something new. (By the way, the word "Trump" never came out of my mouth in my post.)

Ya' know what, Mr. Schniederman?, you're undoubtedly a most wonderful writer and professional career therapist, and I have no doubt your education and ability far surpass my own.

I don't even have a blog or an office.

Looking at your photo, I'd say we've been around about the same amount of time. I've never in my life been more disgusted with the mush coming out of the Republican Party, and I cast my first vote for Nixon in 72'.

Every thing the current crop collectively campaigned for, in two off-year elections, turned out to be total bullshit.

I know it and you know it.

I think John Boehner would better serve his county if he was back at his families bar serving draft beer. Mitch McConnell is a freaking disgrace and an outright liar (see: Ted Cruz).

If Jebs last name was Brosh instead of Bush, he would permanently be a "former governor of Florida" with a long future in front of him to practice his Spanish, and explain how "it's an act of love" to cross our borders illegally to somebody who gives a shit, cause I don't.

Regular conservative Republican "folks" out here, like me, are sick to death of these milk toast professional Republican hacks, who dare not make an unforced error in public, since all their years of striving to remain as far away from the rest of us in the private sector (yet so willing and able to serve us and "understand" us?) might come to naught.

Ah, yes, joining the rest of us mooks out here in the regular world?….. A freakin' fate worse than death for all of them.

They love the power and the perks. But mostly the power.

I have no problem hearing what Trump has been saying, and I like that he's scared the crap out of the elite Republican donor class. 'Ef 'em!

And finally, Stuart, if I may call you Stuart, if the American people want to elect an avaricious, thugette', congenital liar to the Presidency, because it's "time" someone wearing a bra sits in the Oval Office, then we get what we deserve, and no candidate on our side is going to stop that landslide of idiocy.

It's how we got Obama. And I'm not so sure he doesn't wear a bra, too.











Anonymous said...

LOL, Bret Stephens, foremost expert on that which is appalling.

If you have reached physical maturity and still chuckle at Mr. Trump’s pubescent jokes about Rosie O’Donnell or Heidi Klum, you will never reach mental maturity

lol

And so forth and so on—a parade of semi-sophisticated theories that act as bathroom deodorizer to mask the stench of this candidacy.

Was that a poop joke? Not sure if I should chuckle.

Mr. Trump is a loudmouth vulgarian appealing to quieter vulgarians. These vulgarians comprise a significant percentage of the GOP base. The leader isn’t the problem. The people are. It takes the demos to make the demagogue.

Is this significant portion of the GOP really a bunch of vulgarians OR hardworking, God-fearing Americans? Perhaps you have the wrong label attached to yourself when you find yourself out of step with a significant percentage of your own base.

It says that we may soon have a conservative movement in which the American creed of “give us your tired, your poor” could yield to the Trumpian creed that America must not become a “dumping ground” to poor immigrants from Latin America, as if these millions of hardworking and God-fearing people are a specimen of garbage.

Trump rails on the illegal immigrants, but lets not let that get in the way of throwing the legal ones in there too!

It says that a party that carries on about the importance of e pluribus unum and rails against the identity politics of assorted minorities is increasingly tempted to indulge the paranoid (and losing) identity politics of a dwindling white majority.

Says the guy who lives in a 97% white neighborhood. I deciphered this nonsense and my braincomputer says: assorted minority identity politics = GOOD, white identity politics = PARANOID, LOSING, BAD. God forbid someone takes some pride in their heritage.

It says that a movement that is supposed to believe in defending old-fashioned values and traditions against the assorted degradations of the postmodern left might allow itself to be led by a reality-TV star whose meretricious tastes in trophies, architectural and otherwise, mainly remind me of the aesthetics of Bob Guccione.

I DONT LIKE HIS GRAND PORNHUB STATION.

It says that a party that is supposed to believe in the incomparable awesomeness of America thinks we are losing the economic hunger games to the brilliant political leadership of . . . Mexico.

So dismissive of those hardworking, God-fearing Mexicans.

It says that a movement that is supposed to believe in economic freedom doesn’t believe in the essence of economic freedom: to wit, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor

Good idea, lets allow our exports to get taxed and tariffed into oblivion by these countries, but their goods? Come right in! Free trade.

He is an annoying neocon.

Bizzy Brain said...

I know you hate Trump. Interesting little trick you pull off here by publishing the views of another Trump hater and preface his remarks by stating how so highly qualified and respected and non-liberal Bret Stephens is.

Dennis said...

Scullman,

Thanks I rather enjoyed that. Can you imagine that the establishment party and the establishment press just doesn't like Trump? No surprise there. True be known I don't much care for him as a candidate. I would suggest that Trump has reached his high water mark. The republican party can rectify this if only they had a spine.

Sam L. said...

If the Republican establishment would republicate, we wouldn't NEED to like Trump.

"It says that we may soon have a conservative movement in which the American creed of “give us your tired, your poor” could yield to the Trumpian creed that America must not become a “dumping ground” to poor immigrants from Latin America, as if these millions of hardworking and God-fearing people are a specimen of garbage." How twoo, how twoo.
Just askin' here, how can we take in all those who want to come here, when our government makes it difficult to develop more jobs for our own people, from the taxes of whom we could do some good for some people, but those immigrants need to be legal immigrants, and become naturalized as good hard-working citizens contributing to the country?

Ares Olympus said...

Bret Stephens: If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling.

Appalling is a funny word, suggesting a need for moral judgement. Trump is unacceptable because he says unacceptable things. But apparently congresses 12% approval rating shows an 88% disapproval (appalling) score, compared to Trump's perhaps 75% appalling score.

Its curious to wonder what effect Trump's candidacy will have to the country and the GOP party.

In the very least it would seem that a large fraction of the GOP is tired of a tired old ideology of the old white social conservatives (God, gays, guns, and gynaecology). Now at least GOP candidates know they don't have to follow the script, and they can still have a hearing. Who knows?!

His bipolar demonization/lauding of Mexicans (either as rapists, or brilliant negotiators) is either appalling, confusing, or simply truthful opinions of how he sees the world. So it is just completely subjective, and ever changing based on whatever information or misinformation crosses his short attention span.

What I love about Trump's "Wall" rhetoric is because its something we can imagine doing, so at some level it doesn't matter if we ever build such a wall, we know as a country our "know how" still allows us the power to build walls to solve problems. And if he oversteps by suggesting 12-30 million people should be deported, and the 14th amendment reinterpreted, he's putting a mental imagery in the mind of what we could do.

So a consequence at the moment is that Trump's appalling rating (approval - disapproval) among Hispanics is now at -51%. But is that permanent? Trump hasn't thrived as a businessman by telling people what they want to hear, but giving them the bad news first, and then when he gives them a comprise, he suddenly appears rational and generous.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/25/9205717/donald-trump-hispanic-vote

But there's another side of course. Xenophobia is real, and a pied piper like Trump can bring them all together and give them a temporary voice, and perhaps part of people's anger is feeling not heard. But the question is whether this xenophobia is strengthened by self-righteous ideas like deporting your undesirable neighbors, or whether there is a humanizing force that allows both sides to come together?

If Trump's ONLY legacy was forcing the issue of illegal immigration into the forefront, it might be a worthy one. Somehow everone knows a day is coming when 12-30 million illegal immigrants will find themselves on a long slow path to citizenship, and the GOP strategists hates this more than Trump, since they know this will help the cultural diversity Democrats more than the old white Republicans.

That's a scary truth, and if Trump was a Democrat saying the crazy things he said, he'd be equally appalling, and irrelevant, because Democrats already support a path to citizenship.

Is it possible to have a republican president again? Probably not, UNLESS the republicans can find a voice that speaks for someone besides stingy old white men. And so Trump is an old man, but he's rich, so he doesn't have to be stingy, and can help open the tent?

George W. Bush believed God called him to run for president. Perhaps someday Trump will admit his divine inspirations that told him what to say?

Bizzy Brain said...

Bret Stephens has told me I am stupid and dumb. I supported people who I thought would do something about the destruction of the country, number one issue being the immigrant invasion. They did nothing. So who do I have to turn to? Donald Trump. For turning to the only person who addresses my and millions of other voters' concerns, we get some dumbass who has never lifted a finger to solve a problem in his life except write empty words on paper. Well, Mr. Stephens, you have not changed my mind about Mr. Trump, but you have certainly changed the minds of millions of people about you. They now realize you are the appalling one and totally illiterate when it comes to understanding and analyzing voter sentiment. Mr. Krauthammer and Mr. Will, this goes for you, too.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Rosie O'Donnell... such a sympathetic figure.

OracleofMumbai said...

Please, please, please nominate Trump. Hilary is praying conservative nimrods will.

Bret Stevens is dead on with his analysis of the Neanderthal class who thinks Trump is electable rather than the blowhard extraordinare he is. "Im gonna make those rapist Mexicans build the wall" That's so unbelievably laughable I'm amazed even the Neanderthal class thinks Trump isn't a complete lunatic.