AMAZING! I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH A REAL CONSERVATIVE

…Conservative writer, David Frum

 

Here's a good explanation for today’s Republican Party.

 

I don’t usually pay a whole lot of attention to those pundits that used to work for Republican Presidents such as George W. Bush.  But over the years, Mr. David Frum, a former speechwriter for “Dubya”, has always seemed to be a level-headed individual and he appeared so in his article in The Atlantic magazine, where he is a senior editor.

 

In the article, he explains the approach that the Republicans have used for running for political office in the past, and how that traditional approach to campaigning has changed, at least for this coming election.  The point is, that I can hardly believe that I totally agree with his explanation.

 

Here’s an example of what he has described:

 

Per Frum: “Republicans have traditionally run on what I call a Conservatism Classic: “tax cuts, budget cuts, deregulation and free trade.” This was the essence of Mitt Romney’s agenda, and it’s what the party’s wealthy donors expected of the 2016 campaign.”

 

When I read this I was shaking my head in total agreement.

 

Then he followed with this statement: “The trouble is that this pro-business platform is rejected by much of the party’s latest voter base, who support “entitlement” spending (read: Social Security and Medicare), they also favor higher taxes on the rich and fear free trade.”

 

I wasn’t sure about this statement at first, but he supports it with the following data:

 

“A Gallup poll finds that many of today’s Republicans — nearly 30% — advocate “heavy” taxes on the wealthy. By contrast, only 21% endorse cuts in Medicare and fewer still, 17%, support reducing Social Security.”

 

If the Gallup Poll is correct, which they are usually pretty close, this sure doesn’t sound like the “Classic Conservative”.

 

Frum then continues to explain what kind of problem this causes for the GOP.

 

He states, “There is an economic and social chasm between these current Republicans and the party’s traditional elite.  The elite reads the Wall Street Journal, and many make huge campaign contributions. A case in point: In the second quarter of 2015, about four-fifths of the money donated to Jeb Bush’s super PAC came in gifts exceeding $25,000; a quarter were $1 million or more. Meanwhile, Trump’s backers are decidedly skewed toward the lower middle class.”

 

Then he states: “Half of Trump’s supporters within the GOP had stopped their education at or before high-school graduation, according to the polling firm YouGov. Only 19% had a college or post-college degree, and 38% earned less than $50,000. . . . Trump Republicans were not ideologically militant. Just 13% of them said they were very conservative. . . . What set them apart from other Republicans was their economic insecurity and the intensity of their economic nationalism.”

 

Frum goes on to say, and I agree, that there is no way this group that is supporting Donald Trump can be called “Classic Conservative”.  These individuals would never vote for a classic or traditional Republican candidate such as Jeb Bush.

 

This group is seriously against immigrants and they basically regard them as cheats, criminals or competitors for jobs and government benefits.

 

Both Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have backed some form of immigrant legalization, which many GOP leaders regard as necessary to build support in the rapidly growing Hispanic population.  But those in this latest group don’t give a damn about that and that new truth has been showing very heavily in the latest polls.

 

According to Frum, only a small number of wealthy donors show real loyalty to the Classic Conservatism group.  There is a genuine clash of values and policies within today’s GOP. Trump’s political luck was to recognize that difference, either consciously or intuitively, and that he could succeed politically without adapting those traditional Republican positions.

 

What I have been saying for months is also what Frum has come to understand.  The question is of whether the Republican Party can survive this internal civil war?

 

Frum, to cover his butt, is a bit vague when he gets to the end of his article.  For someone in his position, I can understand his hesitancy to be very definite this far away from the election.

 

But I do agree with him that people usually do cling to what’s familiar.  Also, that, “Party identification often reflects the lesser evil more than the greater good.”

 

History has always suggested for parties to always ask for “more of the same”, but for this election, that is not a foregone conclusion.

 

I believe that the short-term fate of the Republican Party could depend on who they nominate as their party’s leader in the coming 2016 election.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2016