About this idea that Trump would ‘destroy the conservative movement’Canadian Free Press, By Dan Calabrese, May 31, 2016
Of all the arguments offered by the #NeverTrumpers, the one most often put forward and least explained is this one: Even if Trump would be a marginally better president than Hillary, it will wouldn’t be worth electing him because a Trump presidency would be the death of the conservative movement.
.../
We start with Shapiro’s observation that conservatives are “desperate for a leader.” That may well be true, but if it is then you can’t blame Donald Trump for coming along and being willing to lead. The better question is why there was no recognized, effective leader before him. Is it because every potential leader who came along was inadequate? Or is it because very good but not perfect people came along who could have been effective, but the rank-and-file spit them out like lukewarm coffee because they were not perfect, and today conservatism demands ideological purity above all else?
.../
I can’t help but notice that the conservative grassroots tends to turn on their heroes right about the time they get elected to something, and it’s discovered that you can’t govern in as pure a fashion as you can campaign - because that same Constitution you revere for the limits on government also limit any one officeholder’s ability to do only what he wants to do. As soon as a guy makes a deal to get half a loaf (and everyone will make a deal to get half a loaf at some point), he’s a liberal RINO establishment cocktail party apostate squish. He’s done. Mark Levin is denouncing his betrayal and the troops are now marching in lockstep behind the latest guy who has never governed anything but claims he would do so as a “true conservative” if he ever got the chance.
Ronald Reagan, who these people claim to revere, said that someone who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is not your 20 percent enemy. They’ve gone way past that. They think someone who agrees with them 94 percent of the time is their 100 percent enemy. That’s what happens to leaders of the conservative movement. You can’t blame Donald Trump for that.
.../
For all the huffing and puffing about their principles, how much success have “true conservatives” achieved with their decades of moral and ideological vanity? Rob and I were talking the other day about conservative policy successes since Reagan left office - actual policies implemented and undertaken successfully between 1989 and today.
I came up with five, two of which - the 1997 capital gains tax cut and the now-decimated Defense of Marriage Act - happened with a Democrat in the White House. The others were the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the ban on partial birth abortion. Rob added a variety of Second Amendment victories courtesy of the Supreme Court.
That’s it. Maybe we forgot something obscure and esoteric, but the conservative movement hasn’t exactly been on a winning streak for the better part of three decades. You can blame that on all the RINO squishes that you think keep selling you out, but dude, when you’re the movement you’re judged by your ability to achieve your goals. If you can’t elect the guys who get it done, or you can’t understand what it takes to get it done, or you don’t have the patience to play a long game like the left does, or you can’t persuade enough of the public to back your ideas so they become more politically viable for elected officials to support, then you ultimately own the failures.
That being the recent legacy of the conservative movement, it’s hard to take seriously the argument that we can’t elect Trump because it would so mortally damage such an essential movement. Maybe a movement more focused on policy successes than organizing cruises and coronating its own media celebrities could be put forward as that essential. The one we have? I do not think so. If Trump could burn it down that easily, then it’s not that strong and certainly not that vital to begin with.
A truly effective conservative movement would seek to help President Trump govern better, recognizing that it would also risk association with some of his failure, but nonetheless valuing the best interests of the nation above its own short-term positioning. The one we have (some of it, anyway), is content to let Hillary take power so it can yelp from the sidelines.
Maybe that’s the really telling thing. Maybe the conservative movement believes yelping from the sidelines is really all it’s good at, which is why it would rather have an easy foil like Hillary as the target for its complaints. If that’s the case, then it’s not so vital a movement after all. At some point, if you’re to be taken seriously, you have to take the opportunity to govern and do the best you can. And you don’t get to wait until the opportunity is easy or perfect. At least people with real courage don’t demand such conditions. Only movements driven by their own moral and ideological vanity.
And movements like that are nowhere near as essential as they would like you to think.
Read more at:
http://canadafreepress.com/article/about-this-idea-that-trump-would-destroy-the-conservative-movement
