Freedom Line Blog

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

The Swiss psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross famously postulated five emotional stages following a death or profound loss: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Conservatives for much of the summer and fall have been attempting to come to terms with the reality of Donald Trump’s candidacy and the depth of division between the Trumpians and the Anti-Trumps. First came denial. (This guy? Are you kidding?) Then came anger. (Seriously, this guy?!)

Now winter is here, a new year is upon us, Trump remains the Republican frontrunner (despite the growing likelihood he will come up short in Iowa). And so we’ve arrived at the bargaining stage and with it, the emergence of the Anti-Anti-Trumpians.

William Voegeli, senior editor of the indispensable Claremont Review of Books (disclosure: I was managing editor of the CRB over a decade ago and Voegeli is a friend), explains why he is “Anti-Anti-Trump”:

The fact that Trump has become a credible contender despite, or even because of, his obvious faults argues, however, for taking his followers’ concerns seriously rather than dismissing them. It is not, in fact, particularly difficult to explain the emergence of Trumpismo in terms of legitimate concerns not addressed, and important duties not discharged. That such a flawed contender could be a front-runner tells us more about what’s wrong with the country than about what’s wrong with his followers. People have every reason to expect that their government will take its most basic responsibilities seriously, and every reason to be angry when, instead, it proves more feckless than conscientious. Governments are instituted among men to secure their inalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence. This means that when we and our rights are left avoidably insecure, government has failed in its central mission.

In short, Trump supporters’ anger is a righteous anger that should be understood and harnessed, rather than treated with contempt and dismissed. Voegeli continues:

The problem, in any case, is not so much that we are governed by idiots as that we are governed by idealists, who proudly follow the Kennedy brothers’ exhortation to disdain seeing things as they are in favor of dreaming dreams that never were. Because no such dream would incorporate a nightmare like ISIS, idealists have preferred to dwell on more congenial matters.

Adding insult to injury, we are governed by idealists who think we’re idiots for not appreciating the bang-up job they’re doing.

Voegeli concludes:

Demagoguery flourishes when democracy falters. A disreputable, irresponsible figure like Donald Trump gets a hearing when the reputable, responsible people in charge of things turn out to be self-satisfied and self-deluded. The best way to fortify Trump’s presidential campaign is to insist his followers’ grievances are simply illegitimate, bigoted, and ignorant. The best way to defeat it is to argue that their justified demands for competent, serious governance deserve a statesman, not a showman.

Voegeli is hardly alone among the Anti-Anti-Trumpians. Peter Lawler at NRO’s Postmodern Conservative blog has been making the case for months, almost to the point of exasperation. Nor have the Anti-Antis escaped criticism, though mostly from the left. Damon Linker at The Week recently published a fairly scathing column on the “unbearable lameness” of Anti-Anti-Trump Republicans, which amounted to “you reap what you sow.”

Perhaps. On the other hand, it isn’t as if the Republicans have a monopoly on populist discontent. Bernie Sanders trails Hillary Clinton in national polls, but he could very well win in New Hampshire. Trump and Sanders have substantial support among independent voters in the Granite State. And as the New York Times reports, Trump’s strongest supporters are “self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.”  

The trouble with the Anti-Anti-Trumpian argument is that it’s not entirely clear that “competent, serious governance” is what Trump’s supporters really want. (Check out this unrepresentative sample of Trump voters responding to a question from The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf. Trump contains multitudes.) We know what they don’t want: More of the same. But, let’s face it, that’s likely what they’re going to get.

A USA Today/Suffolk University poll this week finds that reality TV celebrity and billionaire golf-course developer Donald Trump currently leads among Republican contenders for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Economic historian Robert Higgs, author of many fine books, including the classic Crisis and Leviathan, muses on Facebook: “If only the great H. L. Mencken were still alive to write about Donald Trump and his admirers. What a joyous field day he would have in doing so.”

One commenter offered this gem from the Sage of Baltimore: “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

Not bad, but perhaps a bit too general. Mencken saved some of his best barbs for the business titans of his era. Here, for example, is Mencken on John D. Rockefeller Jr., whose celebrity in some ways parallels The Donald’s:

He is, by all ordinary standards, an eminent man. When he says anything the newspapers report it in full. If he fell ill of gall-stones tomorrow, or eloped with a lady Ph.D., or fell off the roof of his house . . . the news would be telegraphed to all parts of the earth and at least a billion human beings would show some interest in it. And if he went to Washington and pulled the White House bell he would be let in infallibly, even if the Heir of Lincoln had to quit a bridge whist game or a saxophone lesson to see him. But it must be obvious that young John’s eminence, such as it is, is almost purely fortuitous and unearned. He is attended to simply because be happens to be the son of old John, and hence the heir to a large fortune. So far as the records show, he has never said anything in his life that was beyond the talents of a Rotary Club orator or a newspaper editorial writer, or done anything that would have strained an intelligent bookkeeper. He is to all intents and purposes, a vacuum, and yet he is known to more people, and especially to more people of means, than Wagner, and admired and envied vastly more by all classes. (The American Mercury, August 1924)

On second thought, Rockefeller looks pretty good by comparison.

Early this week, the liberal group Americans United for Change and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees launched a $280,000 ad campaign targeting some Republicans who voted to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for all Americans.  The ad charges them with voting “to give people like Donald Trump a tax break worth $150,000 a year…” [Emphasis added]

In response, the Donald took to Twitter and fired back with the following:

To the geniuses at ‘Americans United for Change’: the more you tax me the less people I employ. Get it?

That’s the problem, Mr. Trump.  They don’t get it.

Last week, Ashton, Quin, and I spent a fair amount of time discussing Rick Santorum’s presidential prospects. And while our interpretations of Santorum’s travails varied, we all agreed on one thing: that Santorum had a golden opportunity to gain some visibility by being one of only two candidates on stage for the December 27 Republican presidential debate hosted by Newsmax and moderated by Donald Trump.

With today’s announcement that Trump is bowing out, however, that opportunity is almost certainly lost. We should expect all of the other candidates who turned down the offer when Trump was involved to now reconsider, rendering this a conventional forum and forcing Santorum to rely solely on his ground game in Iowa in the last few weeks of the campaign.

Two thoughts about Trump’s announcement:

• The change in moderator may be bad for Santorum, but it’s very good for the Republican Party. Having a Trump-moderated debate risked making the entire batch of candidates look unserious and the party look unhinged.

• There’s a good chance that this was one big publicity stunt from the start. Neither Newsmax or Ion (the cable network that’s broadcasting the debate) were particularly high-profile before this controversy; now they’re hosting the most highly-publicized debate of the year. As for Trump, is it so shocking to imagine him trawling for publicity with a new book out and a new season of “The Celebrity Apprentice” right around the corner? Count me suspicious that The Donald never intended to host the debate, but that both sides were playing the public in an attempt to gin up ratings.

It is not necessary, but oh so fitting that the week ends with news that GOP presidential candidates Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann will not be attending the December 27^th debate “moderated” by Donald Trump in Des Moines, IA.  After a spirited exchange with Quin and Troy, I’m glad to see my musings about a Lincoln-Douglas style debate between Gingrich and Santorum taking a turn toward reality.  With other candidates Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman already declining – and Herman Cain out of the race – that leaves Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich as the only participants in what could be a decisive event one week before Iowa Republicans caucus to pick a presidential nominee.

Perhaps the twists and turns in this wacky pre-primary season aren’t done just yet.  Next up: Santorum publicly challenging Newt to a one-on-one debate over the past, present, and future of America.  Something tells me it’s the kind of challenge a ‘world historical figure’ like Gingrich won’t pass up.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

I’m not sure whether my title line sounds more like a disreputable law firm or an unpublished fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. Anyway …

There are a lot of good points flying around these discussions. Let me hit on a couple of things in Ashton’s post from earlier today.

He’s certainly right that Santorum may get an unexpected star turn during the NewsMax debate moderated by Donald Trump later this month. Like Ashton, I find the whole affair unsavory (a point I’ve been making over at Ricochet, though I’ve been getting significant pushback there), but I find Santorum’s decision to participate much more reasonable than Newt’s. The former is in such dire need of a Hail Mary pass that he can’t let quibbles with the format keep him from one last shot at a broad swath of the electorate. Newt, whose surge is continuing unabated, doesn’t need the exposure — and his participation is at odds with his repeated insistence that he’s the Serious candidate in the race.

One final note regarding Huntsman, whom Ashton mentioned in passing. As the anti-Newt campaign has developed legs in recent weeks (particularly with the Republican establishment in Washington), there has been yet another search for a conservative alternative, which has led some pundits (including the esteemed George Will) to posit that Huntsman deserves another look. Their rationale? That the former Utah governor has been the most consistently conservative candidate in the field — both in rhetoric and in record — on taxes, guns, and abortion.

This is another example of the principle I keep coming back to as we discuss presidential candidates: having the right positions on paper is necessary, but not sufficient. Huntsman may be good on a handful of issues, but his campaign has been weighed down by the fact that he consistently picks fights with the conservative base, often over superfluous issues (did we really need another election year argument over evolution? Has there ever been a significant presidential decision that hinged on that debate?). He’s the guy who comes back from a stint as Ambassador to China to tell us how bad we look overseas. He’s the guy who tells the Republican Party how primitive it is. And the primary he’d most like to win is with the media.

Why hasn’t Huntsman taken off? Because the only time he communicates with conservatives is to tell them how ashamed of them he is.

Troy, your analysis of Santorum’s weaknesses as a debater is well taken.  You’re also correct to draw out the positive of having so many presidential debates: it allows second tier candidates to make a mark in the public’s consciousness with well-delivered messages whenever the moderator gives them 15 seconds to speak.  Unlike Gingrich and Cain (and arguably Huntsman), Santorum has not made the most of his limited opportunities at these forums.

But that might change with the growing boycott of Donald Trump’s Newsmax debate.  So far, only Gingrich and Santorum have confirmed their attendance at the debate on December 27^th in Des Moines, IA.  With Huntsman, Ron Paul, and as of yesterday Mitt Romney (rightly) calling the Trump-as-moderator idea a distracting publicity stunt – and Michele Bachmann leaning towards declining the invitation because she correctly points out that Trump is considering a third party bid – it means that Rick Perry is the only major candidate yet to decide.  If he bows out, then the debate in Des Moines will feature a Newt v. Santorum one-off exactly one week before the Iowa caucuses.

Despite all his miscues in the debates so far, Santorum would be face-to-face with the current GOP frontrunner seven days before Iowa Republicans –  a state party dominated by grassroots conservatives – goes to the polls.  If this unique opportunity comes to pass and Santorum still can’t master the sound bite, he should demand a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Newt on who has the most compelling conservative vision for America.  That means Trump would effectively become a timekeeper while arguably the two biggest conservative reformers of the 1990’s go at it to prove their base bona fides.  (And if Trump can’t handle not being the star of the show, this gives Newsmax an excellent reason to let him bow out.  Besides, his participation has already cost them ratings with the refusals of several big name candidates.  As a parting gift, they could let The Donald hock his new book during commercial breaks.)

Newt would relish the opportunity.  He has already debated Herman Cain one-on-one, and is set for a Lincoln-Douglas face-off with Huntsman.  Moreover, he said he would challenge President Barack Obama to an L-and-D format where each participant gets an extended period of time to speak and respond.  How could he refuse to engage in the same kind of debate with Santorum?

Both Santorum and Newt have thought seriously about the issues confronting the country, and this format would give them each the opportunity to demonstrate their seriousness to a national audience.  And, with the slow news cycle during the Christmas break providing the perfect opening for sustained attention to the debate before and after, the uniqueness of the event would no doubt increase viewership and water cooler talk.

It’s true that Santorum seemingly needs a miracle where all of the major candidates take themselves off the stage and allow him a one-time shot to prove to conservatives that he is a better Mr. Right than Newt Gingrich.  That seems to be happening with every new debate decline.

Thoughts?

Earlier today Newsmax invited the main Republican candidates to a December 27^th debate in Des Moines, IA.  One catch: it will be moderated by Donald Trump.  Somehow a “moderate” Donald Trump doesn’t seem possible.

In a way it’s fitting that Trump, erstwhile Republican presidential candidate, will be preside over what may be the final GOP debate before the January 3, 2012 Iowa caucuses.  Trump started the anti-Romney conservative popularity surges that later carried Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich to prominence.

But for all his popularity, the choice of Trump is a bit curious since he’s recently admitted to thinking about running for president again – this time on a third party ticket.  While the venue and media exposure may preclude candidates from staying away, I would be wary of taking questions from a guy who could use his moderator’s role to pin down potential rivals.

In my column this week and a discussion here on the Freedom Line blog with Tim, we focused on the current state of the GOP presidential field, which has been defined in recent weeks by a series of high profile non-starters: Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Donald Trump, and John Thune, amongst others. After Daniels — the most recent to take a pass — made his intentions public last weekend, conventional wisdom began to congeal around two intertwined propositions: that the GOP field was essentially set and that grassroots Republicans were dissatisfied with the field. Not so quick.

Not only is the field not set in stone, it may be about to get a shot in the arm courtesy of three potentially top-tier candidates. Reports this week have Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, and Rick Perry all seriously eying a run. For those keeping score at home that’s one of the most successful Republican executives in the last half century, the most dynamic personality that the GOP has produced since Reagan, and the governor of a state that has been an economic powerhouse in the midst of a national downturn, respectively. Get ready for an interesting summer.

In an interview with CFIF, Bill Whalen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, analyzes the field of potential 2012 presidential candidates, focusing particularly on political apprentice Donald Trump and Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachmann.

Listen to the interview here.

His crypto-candidacy is only a few weeks old, but, as Politico reports, Donald Trump is already making big waves in the race to the be the next Republican presidential nominee:

Donald Trump is a force to be reckoned with on the national political stage, according to a new poll on Wednesday night.

The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Trump tied for second place with Mike Huckabee, both at 17 percent, and leading the GOP pack among Tea Party supporters.

Those are huge numbers for someone who was completely absent from presidential chatter just a few months ago (of course, universal name recognition doesn’t hurt).

Let’s stipulate that the odds favor Trump’s flirtations being nothing more than some extremely sophisticated guerilla marketing. That being said, one has to wonder where the source of his appeal lies. The safest bet? Trump is popular because he is unafraid to speak his mind, directly and unapologetically. That’s a rare trait in an age where most politicians are driven by fear of losing the next election rather than hope for governing before then. To the extent that it’s present in other GOP comers — whether in the iron will of Chris Christie or the intellectual honesty of Paul Ryan — it seems to be a gene characteristic of those who won’t be running for president in 2012.

GOP White House hopefuls should take note. There’s a Trump-shaped vacuum in this presidential field.

Though skeptical of a Donald Trump presidential administration, show me in the Yes column for a spirited campaign by the billionaire.  For rhetorical firepower and the brashness to speak truth without consequences, there may be no more entertaining presidential hopeful than The Donald.  Consider this description of his speech today at CPAC:

“The United States has become a whipping post for the rest of the world,” Trump said. “The world is treating us without respect. They are not treating us properly. America today is missing quality leadership, and foreign countries are quickly realizing this.”

Trump laced his speech with heavy criticisms of President Obama and declared himself to be pro-life, against gun control and an opponent of the health care reform law. He said that Obama “came out of nowhere” and seemed to question the president’s documented personal history, claiming that people who went to school with Obama “never saw him. They don’t even know who he is.”

On foreign policy, Trump sounded particularly skeptical of the intentions of China and the OPEC nations and said that if he had “an admiral and a couple good ships” to deal with Somali pirates, he would “blast them out of the water so fast.”

The best result of a Trump presidency?  Seeing him turn around during his inaugural speech, look President Barack Obama in the eye and say, “You’re fired.”

H/T: Scott Conroy of Real Clear Politics