Connect with us

Conservatism

5 reasons Trump’s conservative detractors need to rethink their stance

Published

on

5 reasons Trumps conservative detractors need to rethink their stance

President Trump makes mistakes. All presidents do. All humans do. He also has many policies that have done what he said would happen. They’re making America great again. I wasn’t one who bought into the slogan before, but I’ve come around. I’ve seen what has happened over the last three years. More importantly, I have a clear vision of what would happen if he is not reelected.

There are a few things that must be established before I get into the meat and potatoes of this article. The first is understanding the difference between “critics” and “detractors.” Many, perhaps most, who support President Trump do so without question. It doesn’t matter what he says or does. They love it. I am a “critic” of the President’s. When he does well, I praise. When he does poorly, I criticize. I spoke out profusely about the administration’s bump stock ban. I pleaded for months against replacing free trade with fair trade with several articles before acknowledging after the tariffs were in place that if we’re going to have a trade war, we need to go all the way. No half-measures. The fastest path to free trade is by crushing China into economic submission. These and other issues define me as a Trump critic while still allowing me to support him unabashedly.

Detractors are against the President wholly. Those conservatives who have turned from criticism to insult are detractors. And in the nature of detractors, they are taking away from the President’s ability to win. Perhaps a better way of putting it is they are actively increasing the chances of Democratic Socialists taking control in Washington DC. They’ll justify their actions by saying things like, “Trump’s just as bad” or “If he can’t take criticism he shouldn’t be in the White House.” But what they’re really saying is they hate the President so much they’d rather America be transformed piece by piece into a socialist state.

Honest criticism is righteous and necessary to keep the President and the GOP heading in the right direction. Detracting from their abilities to lead and win in 2020 is de facto support for the opposition, which is the Democrats. There is ZERO chance any of the primary challengers now or in the future can do anything other than harm the President’s chances of victory. We can do advanced political calculus all we want and try to goad the President into debating Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, John Kasich, Justin Amash, or whoever else wants to challenge him, but it’s disingenuous to try to disguise this as anything other than an attempt to embarrass the President. Competition internally will not make the Republican Party stronger in this case. We had our chance to put someone else in the Oval Office during the 2016 primaries and we lost. Now, we must be proper defenders of the Constitution against the machinations of he radical progressives trying to take it down.

I was “NeverTrump” for a while, especially during and after the 2016 primaries. I was so against him and most of the GOP that I started a new political party. Over time I learned a few things, which I will detail below.

As a final point before diving into the topic at hand, it should be noted that our efforts to launch the American Conservative Movement hinge on support for President Trump and conservatives within the GOP. If there are opportunities to replace RINOs with Constitutional conservatives, we must seize on them. The protections against detractors given to President Trump within this movement do not apply to RINOs on Capitol Hill or in state offices around the country because we actually can make a difference there. We can support strong Constitutional conservatives to replace RINOs without fear of contradiction to the cause because the source of the movement is adherence to proper policies, not bowing to the party itself. And a movement that would exclude Trump supporters would’t be much of a movement at all.

In short, it behooves conservatives across America to support the President and conservatives in other offices as we push forward towards 2020. Many have grown indignant and disenchanted with the party and/or its leader, but there are five important reasons why these people need to suck it up and focus on doing what’s best for America.

The binary choice

It’s important to start with this one, not because it’s the most pressing reason but because two important points must be made regarding this. I’m not a fan of binary choices, which is why I tried to start a new political party. But until such a time comes when we aren’t forced to pick between Democrats and Republicans, those will be the only two valid cards we’re dealt.

There’s another component of binary choice that must be understood, one I eluded to before. Many of President Trump’s conservative detractors say we can get someone better to run as a Republican for president. They say that this “someone” has a very small chance of defeating President Trump. When they say this, they’re wrong. Any Republican who runs against President Trump has absolutely zero chance of defeating him. Striving for better in the face of futility is not honorable, not when the damage done is beneficial to the opposition.

But it’s bigger than just the Oval Office. Without massive support for President Trump, the down-ballot races will fall like flies hitting a bug zapper. Turnout is everything in presidential elections, and I can say with a high degree of certainty that Democratic turnout in 2020 will break records. If Republican turnout doesn’t do the same, we’re not just going to lose the White House. We’re going to lose the Senate. We’ll lose governors and mayors. The House of Representatives will return to the pre-1994 days when Democrats controlled it for decades.

The economy

Unemployment is at an all-time low, particularly for African- and Hispanic-Americans.

Wages are finally rising after nearly two decades of stagnation and fiscal mismanagement kept wage growth slowed compared to cost of living.

The dollar is strong. Wall Street is flourishing. Prosperity is on the rise.

Whether you attribute these positives to President Obama, Congress, or President Trump, you do so without knowing for sure because nobody can honestly and definitively give proper credit when it comes to the economy. That’s the nature of economics and why there’s still plenty of debate over what works and what does not. But the easiest attribution can be given to the 2018 tax cuts, and both President Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress delivered on them.

The last thing we need is a Democratic Congress and president reversing the tax cuts and potentially doing great harm to the economy.

The Supreme Court

When the 2020 election takes place, there will be three Justices in their 60s, two in their 70s, and two in their 80s. The next two presidential terms could realistically expect to control the nominations of 2-4 or more Supreme Court Justice seats.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Instead of two decent Justices in Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, we would have a very left-leaning Supreme Court that is pro-abortion, anti-gun, and pro-authoritarian rule.

This is the omnipresent argument about the presidency and the Senate. Every presidential election makes this the great equalizer when someone we don’t necessarily like represents our party for the presidency.

The border

Despite unhinged Democrats, activist judges, and feckless GOP leadership during the two years they had total control of Capitol Hill with a Republican in the Oval Office, the administration has still made the most strides to protect the border than any administration in history. Supporters often invoke “best in history” when referring to President Trump’s various policies, but this is one that is actually backed up by demonstrable actions.

The border crisis was inevitable. We should have seen it coming five years ago. We definitely should have seen it coming before the midterm elections. But we didn’t. Now, we’re stuck fighting the migrant surge with both arms tied behind our backs. But the President is doing everything he can to stop it. He listened to bad advice from the aforementioned feckless Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, but we can assume that won’t happen again. And hopefully, if the GOP regains control of both chambers, they learned their lesson as well.

We’ll make sure they do if they haven’t already.

Without the President’s stance on the border issue, we will have open borders. This is as inevitable as the border crisis was. This point alone should be enough to scare detractors into rethinking their stance, but I have one more, just in case…

The existential threat

I am sick of hearing from so-called conservatives that President Trump is no better than the Democrats running for office. It takes a heavy degree of willful ignorance to not recognize the difference between President Trump’s faults and the existential threats knocking on the White House’s door. The best-case scenario for healthcare under a Democratic president and Congress is a public option and massive expansion of Obamacare, which itself will bankrupt this nation. The various iterations of Medicare-for-All would set this country on an unavoidable collision course with Modern Monetary Theory, the destruction of the dollar, and an economic collapse that would make 2008 seem like a minor fractional correction.

Gun control will be enacted, and I’m not talking about universal background checks or red flag gun laws. The gun control the Democrats will enact will essentially suspend the 2nd Amendment.

Then, there’s the abortion issue. If there’s one thing that disturbs me the most about “conservatives” or “Christians” who oppose President Trump and/or the GOP, it’s this issue. We’ve seen what happens when Democrats are in control of states. Abortion isn’t just available. It’s promoted. There are laws passing now that allow babies born after failed abortions to be left to die. Every “conservative” or “Christian” who works to prevent the President and the GOP from winning in 2020 is pro-abortion in their actions even if their rhetoric pretends to say otherwise.

Self-righteous attacks on the President in light of what has been accomplished and more importantly based on what will be lost if the Democrats take control is not an expression of one’s conscience. It’s selfish and will work towards the unraveling of this nation as we know it.

America is heading in the right direction. President Trump is far from perfect. Everybody is. But “conservatives” who work against him in today’s political scenario are working towards the destruction of America through Democratic control.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

0

Conservatism

Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal, Part I

Published

on

By

Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal Part I

The NBA strife over Hong Kong has laid bare the left’s socialist national agenda and their hatred of liberty.

It’s never more gratifying than when prominent leftists prove several assertions about themselves all at once. Such was the case recently when left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr asserted a false complexity when defending authoritarianism over the cause of liberty.

As reported in the Daily Wire, the prominent NBA coach made the following comments defending the authoritarianism of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’:

When asked about whether he’s ever been asked about China’s record of human rights abuses before, Kerr responded: “It has not come up in terms of people asking about it, people discussing it.”

As is usually the case with leftists, he deflected the deliberate oppression and mass murder of the socialist-left side of the rational political spectrum model in the guise of the Communist Party of China (CPC) with the red herring of the actions of criminals in the states. He then asserted:

“We can play this game all we want and go all over the map. There’s this issue and that issue. The world is a complex place and there’s more gray than black and white,” Kerr concluded. “I realize that what’s popular these days is making it black and white. You’re either good or you’re evil. It’s convenient to do things that way, but not realistic.”

In actuality, those words of deflection are only meant to confuse the issue and hide that the socialist-left favours control over liberty, authoritarianism over freedom.

Most complex systems are based on elegant formulations.

While the world is a complex place, most of it’s workings can be explained by relatively simple but elegant formulations such as Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. While there are vast differences between the physical and political sciences given that the latter deal with very complex and changing phenomena and the actions of people in large populations. Both have certain basic precepts that can be used to generally model the political spectrum. In the case of modelling the political spectrum, it’s imagined complexity can be broken down into several basic assertions that correctly explain the situation.

The key difference between the development of the formulations in the field of engineering and those of politics is that there are no groups [perhaps aside from ‘flat-earthers’] that argue over the parameters of Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. No one really has a reason to argue over the law of gravity in non-relativistic sphere.

Unfortunately, this is not the case when trying to model the political spectrum, primarily because the groups that make up the various factions have a vested interest in obscuring the true situation.

The right prefers liberty, the left prefers control.

In general terms there are just two sides of politics – left and right. Despite attempts by the left to muddy the waters and confuse the situation, that is the generic formulation. These two terms were born out of the historical events surrounding the French revolution, but have gained different meanings along the way. Howbeit this was the source of the terms, it is incorrect to use the context in which they were coined. As is the case with analyzing most complex systems, it’s best to start with first principles. In the case of any political spectrum model we begin with a statement that sets forth the primary difference between left and right, as engineer and author, Robert A. Heinlein so eloquently termed it:

“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire”. Robert A. Heinlein

Stating it in as basic terms as possible the right favors liberty over control while the left favors control over liberty. In other words, the right favors minimal government and maximum liberty, while the left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The left will of course object to this kind of generalization simply because it casts them in a bad light as authoritarians at heart. One only needs to look at their socialist national agenda to confirm this assertion, in that they prioritize control over the cause of liberty.

The right favors individualism, the left favors collectivism.

We can also consider the two sides in terms of the two basic political philosophies of individualism and collectivism. This also affirms the precepts of rational political spectrum model.

The Oxford English dictionary defines individualism:

1The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
‘a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth’

Synonyms: independence, self-direction, self-reliance, freethinking, free thought, originality

2A social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
‘encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit’

The Oxford English dictionary defines collectivism:

1The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
‘the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism’

Synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism

1.1The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system.
‘the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism’

Please note that these principles are of giving a group priority over individuals. The problem is that since groups or collectives happen to be arbitrary constructs, the rights imbued to them are also arbitrary, or non-existent. It logically follows that only individuals can have rights.

Individual rights, liberals and liberty.

Consider how the Oxford English dictionary defines liberal:

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

Origin
Middle English via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’.

[Emphasis added]

While the definition refers to ‘moderate political and social reform’, it clearly shows that true liberals favour individual liberty, free trade, placing them on the pro-liberty side of the rational political spectrum model.

This in essence ties everything together, clearly placing liberals in the camp of favouring individual rights and freedoms. While also demonstrating that liberty and liberalism are tied together, having the root word from Latin: liberalis.

Thus, we have set out the basic parameters of the rational political spectrum model:

  • The right favors minimal government and maximum liberty.
  • The left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The actions and policy agendas of the left confirm these general assertions, despite the false protestations of complexity by that side of the political spectrum as exemplified by the words of Left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr.

In part II we will examine in greater detail why it’s important to properly identify and cut through the confusion propagated by the authoritarian left. As well as distinguish their precepts with those of the pro-liberty right.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

NeverTrump’s Achilles Heel

Published

on

Trump says peace talks with Taliban are now dead

A common refrain among NeverTrump Republicans is that Donald Trump is unfit for office by both temperament and ideology, the former being foremost in their vociferous opposition to his presidency.  On the latter point I don’t entirely disagree:  Trump was—and is—not particularly conservative, although his instincts lean in that direction, as does his governance.  Put another way, for a guy who spent most of his life as a New York Democrat, he’s been far more effective at advancing a conservative agenda than George W. Bush ever was—and with the historic number of judges confirmed by Mitch McConnell, Trump’s legacy will live on long after he leaves office.

As to NeverTrump’s supposedly principled opposition to the President’s character—well, that’s another matter.  I don’t doubt that there are a few among their number who have been consistent in that regard, but when it comes to the leadership of that movement it becomes obvious that their arguments have less to do with actual conservatism and more to do with lamenting their diminished status within a Trumpified GOP.  How else to explain the likes of Tom Nichols voicing his support for whomever the Democrats nominate in 2020, no matter how radical or socialist?  Or Bill Kristol embracing his own “inner socialist,” and declaring that he would rather be ruled by an unelected deep state than a duly-elected Donald Trump?  These are not conservative positions, any way you look at them—and they make you realize just how content Conservatism, Inc. was with the relentless leftward drift of the country and the culture, so long as they got to keep their cozy little gigs arguing over the details.

More than that, however, NeverTrump seems to have a real problem with the truth—quite ironic, considering that one of their main criticisms of Donald Trump is what they see as his serial dishonesty.  Take this tweet from Mona Charen, for example:

In case Ms. Charen needs a reminder, Bill Barr is investigating the origins of the Russia collusion hoax—an episode in which the former Secretary of State illegally ran a private email server in order to thwart federal records laws so that she could escape scrutiny for her activities with the Clinton Foundation.  It’s also beyond question that Clinton compromised national security with her actions, exposing state secrets to bad actors—including the Russians and the Chinese.  Now it has become apparent that the FBI, under the leadership of James Comey, may have coordinated with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to give Clinton a pass.  This represents an astonishing amount of corruption at the highest levels of the federal government, which is a direct threat to the rule of law.

Yet Ms. Charen seems uninterested in finding out the truth—probably because it would vindicate President Trump’s assertion that a deep state has been working to undermine his administration from the start.  This is indefensible from anything resembling a conservative point of view.  The only explanation is that Charen doesn’t care, because the truth conflicts with her political preferences.

I ran into the same issue personally with National Review’s Jay Nordlinger.  I’ve read him for years, and have always respected his writing and his dedication to conservative principle.  And even though I largely disagreed with his views on Trump, I always believed him to be arguing in good faith.  Last week, he posted this on Twitter:

To which I replied that George H.W. Bush did much the same to the Kurds in northern Iraq during the first Gulf War, after publicly admonishing them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.  The Kurds did just that, assuming they would have the military support of the United States.  Bush didn’t give that support—and American troops stood by while Saddam engaged in a wholesale slaughter.

Nordlinger, disappointingly, reacted by blocking me.

Understand that I wasn’t defending Trump’s decision to withdraw troops in Syria—I merely pointed out that one of his own personal heroes had made a similar decision, believing it to be in the best interests of the United States at the time.  That, in retrospect, it turned out to be a huge mistake that didn’t stabilize the Middle East and directly led to the rise of al Qaeda doesn’t seem to matter.  History has been subverted to politics.  Truth is now secondary.

This, more than anything, is the greatest weakness of NeverTrump.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

What President Trump hasn’t done

Published

on

What President Trump hasnt done

An op-ed I posted a few hours ago has drawn more people to reach out to me to see if I’m turning against President Trump, yet. One particularly well known “Never Trumper” direct messaged me on Twitter to congratulate me for seeing through the President’s lies. He was shocked to find out my call for the President to sanction Turkey didn’t mean I was turning against him. I still intend to support the President’s reelection efforts and will be voting for him in 2020.

There’s a big difference between criticism and opposition. In today’s ultra-tribal political atmosphere, too many people deal with absolutes. If they oppose a candidate or a party on a single issue, they suddenly oppose that candidate or party on all issues. It’s rather strange seeing former “conservatives” who are now embracing Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren while still pretending to be pro-life, defenders of capitalism, protectors of religious freedoms, 2nd Amendment proponents, and believers in limited government.

But it’s not just the “Never Trumpers” who are the problem. Some of the President’s most devoted fans have willfully molded their conservative worldviews around his. They’re latching onto his “bring the troops home” mantra regarding Syria, though the troops aren’t actually coming home. They’re preparing to be “common sense gun control” advocates in case the President signs universal background checks or red flag incentives into law. They do these things without considering if President Obama did either of these things, they’d be all over Twitter calling him treacherous and anti-freedom.

My perspectives on President Trump are simple and honest. When he does well, I praise him. When he does poorly, I criticize him. My praise has greatly outweighed my criticisms, but invariably any time I criticize his actions I’m attacked by overzealous members of his base and approached by “Never Trumpers” looking to add me to their ranks.

Friday evening, I posted a thread that demonstrates why I won’t be a “Never Trumper” any time soon. It’s worth reading to understand why I can criticize the President while knowing I generally support him and approve of most of his policies.

I can call for President Trump to sanction Turkey and still be fully supportive of his presidency and reelection efforts. Criticism on one issue is not opposition as a whole… at least it shouldn’t be. Patriotism must be driven by honest assertion of our beliefs.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending