The sooner he becomes a Democrat

The happier most conservatives should be.  Chris Christie is not anyone I would ever vote for.  I'd happily vote for Donald Trump before Christie.  Christie reminds me of John McCain, but without the charm.  To me, he comes off as a two bit school yard bully hypocrite who will willingly throw most conservatives under the bus in order to suck up to the leftwing party machine.   Sure, there's just enough of the radical in the Democrats to keep him a Republican - for now.  And he's clearly betting that by kissing up to the MSM/Democrat narratives of conservatives being infested by stupid tin hat hayseeds, they might push him to the front of the pack in 2024.

Nonetheless, I would never vote for a man who tells government workers asking for raises that every penny is needed so suck on it ... excuse me, the State's helicopter is here to fly me to my son's games.  That level of elitism sucks I don't care which party is doing it.  And spare me the lame excuses.  If this is the type of person Republicans, much less conservatives, end up voting for, they'll deserve everything they get.  If voting for a pseudo-progressive 'I'm not like those evil right wing types' candidate like GW Bush taught us anything, it's don't vote for candidates who do their best to promote the worst stereotypes of you in order to curry favor with those you're desperately trying to resist. 

Why Trump wins

Sigh.  How does someone like Donald Trump continue to defy all odds and win?  Easy.  First, we have the Clear Opposition:

Yep.  That's actually a Mothers Day ad by a liberal Super-Pac.  It's real.  It is not a parody concocted by right wingers to make the Left look bad.  It's actually supposed to scare you mothers out there, lest yours sons become one of ... one of ... them.  I mean, this is so blind to how actual people think, it's beyond imagining:

On the other hand, you have the Never Trumpers.  These folks increasingly sound like the very people who pushed many conservatives and Republicans into the arms of Trump in the first place.

Basically, the GOP had become filled with pols and pundits who appeared to view conservatism on, shall we say, unique lines.  They held to big business issues that helped the top earners and money makers.  They were just conservative enough, but not so much that they wouldn't be invited to all the best liberal parties in Manhattan and Washington D.C..  Every couple years, they would flimflam the yokels between the coasts, convincing them that they cared about such stupid things as abortion or sexual deviance or encroachment on basic liberties or the erosion of traditional Judeo-Christian foundations of our society.   Once the elections were over, it was back to champagne and caviar with the beautiful people at the latest party, to hell with the yokels.

And so they continue.  The latest has been to marginalize Kanye West and Candace Owens.  Granted, I know little of Ms. Owens, other than she forcefully calls out some of the most sacred cows of modern, liberal race theory and narratives.  I know even less about Kanye West.  I just know he's known to provoke with goofy opinions, as many rappers do, and that I probably wouldn't hang too much on his opinion, other than acknowledge he is allowed to have an opinion.

I certainly note the Left's hysterics and its need to keep the minority herds in the pen.  I likewise caution conservatives about chasing after the latest cultural icon who happens to say something remotely positive about Trump, the GOP, or anything not leftist.  I'm thinking Rosanne here.

Nonetheless, they're free to speak, and should represent at least an alternative to the very tight narrative controlled by the Left with its monopoly in the press, educational institutions and popular culture.  They should be heard, if not taken too seriously.  Just as anyone should be heard (and that includes those who represent majority opinions).  Perhaps the truth will end up being somewhere in between.

But not so for the Never Trumper!  Ross Douthat demonstrates.  Like George Will, I've become somewhat disappointed in Mr. Douthat. Mr. Douthat, like Will, has become more Never Trumper than conservative, finding any way to tear down, to marginalize, or deflect from a net positive that could somehow find its way back the the Trump White House.  As one who didn't vote for Donald Trump, I can say that's no different than being a liberal Democrat.

Here he demonstrates this in flying colors.  His entire piece can be summed up this way.  Basically, while the Kanye kerfuffle is worth a giggle, on the whole he and Ms. Owns are race bating hacks and likely frauds.  Only by accepting 95% of the leftist, Multi-Cultural, PC, Identity Politics narrative can conservatives have a chance.  Only by assuming America as nothing but a racist nation defined by racism, filled with racists doing nothing on a daily basis than being racist, and the unparalleled daily suffering of African Americans in this most racist of all nations, can conservative hope to appeal to a multi-ethnic voting base.

I doubt it.  What he doesn't know about America, race and identity politics appears to be what he does know about the Catholic Church.  That is, you can't take almost everything from forces diametrically opposed to you, declare them true, and then slap one little modicum of dissension on it and call it a compromise.  If you throw a clean washcloth in a mud puddle, chances are the mud puddle won't get cleaner.  He rightly points out that every time a Western monotheistic faith has attempted to compromise with liberalism, it has failed, withered, and died.  Why he can't figure that the same goes for compromising politically on fundamental premises, I don't know.

But like too many NTs, he appears to see accepting the premises, narratives, priorities, templates and assumptions of the modern Left regarding issues like racism and America's identity as the only real way to help the GOP.  We even accept some of the Left's basic solutions.  It's just that somewhere along the line, we don't just go all Leftist and we ought to do something different somewhere, and that will make all the difference.   That the issue of racism, while real, historical, and a problem to be overcome is hardly a thing to be denied, simply taking the Left's entire book on the subject at face value, while changing one tiny part of the cover, is hardly the solution.  It will likely continue to result, not in greater racial harmony, but as we've seen in the last decade or so, far less.  And I don't think we'll see waves of ethnic minorities storming the GOP Convention as a result.

Congratulation Mr. Douthat, you've just joined Tom Steyer in helping to make sure that Donald Trump will never go away.

George Will rips Mike Pence

And I mean rips.  Speaking of civility in our current level of political discourse.

Mike Pence, not Trump, is hated.  Loathed.  Despised.  The American Left not only hates, but fears Pence.  For Pence is all that Trump is not.  And they know it.  Each time it looked like Trump might be run out of office, the pages were filled with editorials reminding us that Trump is just a clown who can't be expected to be any better than he is.  But Pence.  Ah, there is the true misogynistic Nazi deplorable who threatens all mankind!

George Will, who basically is a moderate commentator who only looked conservative because he sat with hardcore liberals for a living, has unleashed a toxic broadside at Pence.  I mean, wow.  Every adjective, every modifier oozes with a disdain and loathing that can barely be contained.  I've seen Mao described more charitably.

If you ever wanted to read a poisonous, noxious, partisan screed from a hardcore, conservative hating Leftist, you couldn't do much better than reading Will's piece for the Washington Post.

File #9935234 under why Trump owes his presidency to the Establishment.  Oh, and bonus for knowing why all the screams about civility in discourse tend to fall on deaf ears.

BTW, none of this is to say I agree with Pence on everything, or think Arpaio shouldn't be dealt with differently.  It is to say that Will's piece reeks of a hatred and contempt, not just for Pence and Trump, but for all who fail to run with the champagne and caviar set who get invited to all the best liberal parties in Manhattan, whatever their party affiliation happens to be.

John Kasich embraces the moderate way

In his speech at the Women's National Republican Club, John Kasich basically outlined the moderate alternative to the front runners.  And by moderate, I don't mean compared to the front runners.  I mean moderate in the sense of Joe Scarborough, John McCain, or Mitt Romney.  That is, hold onto certain key economic principles like low taxes and a strong military...and chuck the rest.

The essence of his speech, despite what the NYT headline says, was not to channel Reagan, but to deify the 90s, when he and everyone else, who apparently weren't worried about polls and were all about harmony and compromise, were building the greatest decade ever, with money and security and happiness everywhere.  Yes, he referenced Reagan some, but usually as a person. It was noteworthy that he spent most time discussing the 90s, even if he occasionally gave a nod to Reagan in the process.

Kasich's primary target was not Hillary, or Sanders, or the Democrats or liberalism.  It was [Republicans] "clinging to the past" who were being snookered by fear and paranoia, hatred and bigotry.  He condemned the calls to halt Muslim immigrants, to push through religious freedom bills in Mississippi, and to point out the dire straights in which America finds itself.

In fact, while he conceded that we have issues and problems, even significant ones, he turned around and praised just how wonderful America is, how great things are in the big picture, and how promising it will be if we all just learn to live together.

OK.  Basically, no problem with anything he said.  On the surface.  I don't care for the call to ban Muslims, nor do I believe a wall along the border will do any good.  I do support religious freedom bills, because of where I see the alternative heading (more on that in a few).  And you don't want to succumb to fear, to miss where things are working, or to refuse to give credit where it is due.

And I also realize that Mr. Kasich is a politician.  This is the primary season, and his main opponents are on his own team.  Likewise, he will elevate the 90s to the decade when God was in charge since that was the high point of his own political career.  Despite some of his accomplishments in Ohio, there have been set backs as well.  And as for his much proclaimed healthcare reform, either he hasn't implemented it yet, or we haven't seen the benefits.  So focus on the 90s and that legendary balanced budget.

But my problem with his entire presentation was that it reeked of moderatism.  That is, not moderation, or even compromise.  It reeked of that same problem that haunts moderate Conservatives in the same way it haunts liberal Americans and Europeans on the international stage.  That is, liberal Europeans, as I have said before, believe that white, European and American, heterosexual, Christian men are the manifestation of all evil and the singular cause of suffering and problems in the world.  As a result, when something like radical Islam (or Islam as a whole), or Communist China (or Cuba), or any other culture or civilization or demographic seems to be threatening, the Left retreats and imagines that the only real cause of the problems must be conservatives who refused to denounce our heritage and refuse to compromise, since clearly everyone else merely wants to smoke the peace pipe and give peace a chance.

Moderate Republicans are the same on the national front.  In addition to sometimes seeing global affairs the way of the Left, they see domestic issues the same way.  Only this time, the enemy is those other Republicans who are 'clinging to the past', embracing all of the bigotry and hate and stupidity that non-conservatives accuse them of harboring.  Everyone else, on the other hand, just wants to smoke the peace pipe and give peace a chance.  Compromise will abound.  We will all just agree to disagree and live in harmony and buy the world a Coke.

Of course these views are fundamentally flawed.  It seems almost incredible to liberals, or those who compromise with the liberal narrative, to believe that Communist China or the Islamic world actually don't want to end up being just like a liberal, Western civilization.  That's not the vision they have.  Likewise, it appears just as unbelievable to the moderate Conservative that not all liberals just want to get alone and live in peace.  To them, it's impossible to imagine that some might want to ruthlessly oppress and eradicate any opposition to their superior values and ideas.

As a result, Kasich, in channeling this brand of moderatism, appears as if he believes the only real mischief today is Trump's and Cruz's followers.  When it comes to all other groups, everyone is just itching to get along, so if we compromise on our side, such as over issues like Gay Marriage, no doubt those to the left of center will compromise as well.

This isn't to say all Muslims want to conquer the world, or all liberals want a Leftist totalitarian regime.  It is to say that Muslims and Liberals might be slow to recognize the problems in their own demographics until it is too late.  It also is to say that there are those who are Muslim, and who are progressive, who want just that.  And the moderate Conservative's inability to look past the sins of his own demographic seriously compromises his ability to ultimately protect liberty and freedom from their machinations.  Just like one of the greatest threats to safety and security today is the American Left's refusal to look at the evil thriving within Islam and call it out and demand the same stark condemnations from the Islamic world, simply because they can't believe a civilization not rooted on the Western Tradition could be capable of anything so heinous as desiring world domination.

That's why, as we witness one of the most sustained campaigns against basic First Amendment Rights since the Bill of Rights was ratified, it's unlikely we could trust someone like Kasich to protect those jeopardized freedoms and liberties.  Not because he wants to see them eroded.  But because he appears to embrace the modern way of imagining that, in the end, the only real threats to our well being must be at the feet of my own demographic.  If we could just get our team in order, then the rest of the country and the rest of the world would fall into line and we would all live happily ever after.  A more flawed understanding of reality I can't imagine, nor could I imagine supporting someone who embraced that flawed understanding of reality except under the most grievous of circumstances.

The American Conservative hearts Bernie Sanders

Yep.  At least in terms of Foreign Policy. Apparently Bernie's approach to foreign policy is quite the solution to our problems.  Thus says The American Conservative.  The overall report card has one underlying theme: Isolation and work with the status quo.  Given that things are blowing themselves halfway to hell in the world, I'm willing to concede that our past approaches haven't worked, but don't see just hoping that everything in the world solves itself is the way to go.  If Isolationism didn't work in the 1930s, my bet is it won't work in the 2010s.  Though it's worth noting that for The American Conservative, there seems to be few politicians today more worthy of respect and possibly outright adoration than pro-Culture of Death Liberal Socialist Bernie Sanders (who apparently isn't a socialist despite what he thinks).  So go figure.

The problem with Conservatives

Is that they are, as often as not, merely yesterday's liberals.  So not quite two decades ago, Conservatives then were shocked at the defenses being made on behalf of Bill Clinton.  The defenders of Clinton, once the truth was known, were reduced to telling us that it didn't matter.  So what if he lied?  It was for sex   So what if he committed perjury in the high court?  It was for sex.  So what if he had an affair?  So what if he played the media, falsely accused his opponents, manipulated the American public?  Everyone does it anyway.  Plus, he gave us the greatest economy in the history of the universe.  What does it matter?  Do values, ethics, and character even matter?  No!

So what are Trump's defenders doing?  Conservatives defending Trump?  Why, sounding just like those who were defending Clinton all those years ago.  Who cares about Trump's background?  His recent past support of liberalism and Democrats?  His voting record?  His character and values?  Who cares period!  It doesn't matter.  He's taking on the press.  He's a rebel.  He speaks his mind.  He's got tons of money and is successful.  That, children, is all that matters.  Do values, ethics, and character even matter?  No!

The problem with Conservatives is that they are, as often as not, merely yesterday's liberals.

Ross Douthat is a credit

To Catholics, Conservatives and Americans.  Here he points out what many are figuring.  For those who scratch their heads and wonder how after 20 of 28 years of Republican control, we can be in a state in 2008 of electing perhaps the most openly and radically liberal president in history, here's the answer.  I knew a fellow who was a Catholic convert.  He was from Argentina (and had some pretty strong words about the Left's answer to illegal immigration).  He had also worked with the government for several decades.  He explained that it didn't matter who was in the White House, or Congress for that matter.  The overwhelming majority of government workers he had associated with were far to the Left, avid Democrats, and more liberal than most of the liberal Democrats the media interviews.

There are other reasons of course.  Many Republicans aren't much better.  And as for the presidents, at least two of the three last GOP executives had wives that would fit alongside of any MSNBC host.  And a few others would either embrace all the glories of liberalism completely, or at least, alongside most of the American mega-multinational corporations, promote everything from liberalism that leads to hedonism and debauchery, as long as it winds up lifting the bottom line.  Nonetheless, like it or not, we are and have been for many generations, a liberal society.  Douthat calls it like it is.  Perhaps others may begin to listen.

Meanwhile Mitt Romney

Tries to destroy whatever good will he may have won from his victory in the first presidential debate.  When the conservative movement has been torn asunder over whether or not to continue supporting the GOP after decades of failed promises and limp wristed support for social issues, Mitt Romney steps forth and assures them that he has no intention of caring about their concerns if he is elected president.

I realize that technically he merely is saying that he won't propose any pro-life legislation aimed at reducing or preventing abortions.  According to his spokeswoman, he would apparently consider at least something regarding congressional initiatives, but that's purely speculation on my part.  All I know is that Romney has suggested to moderates Americans that he has no intention of doing anything with abortion one way or another if he is elected.

Add that to the win column for those Catholics insisting that voting for the GOP is no different, or better, than voting for the Democrats.  Goodness knows, I'm beginning to think they're correct.

Why don't conservatives trust Mitt Romney?

Exhibit A.  The Boy Scouts, an organization that has withstood the homosexual juggernaut for decades, gets blindsided by Mr. Romney who takes a stand against their belief that men who are sexually attracted to other men ought not share close sleeping quarters with teenage boys.  Once again from the top: the GOP has only and ever begrudgingly bought into social and religious conservatism, largely due to Ronald Reagan's legacy.  A growing number of GOP pols would gladly and gleefully jettison all that pesky social conservative garbage, opting instead to continue their priority of eliminating taxes and regulations for large, multi-billion dollar corporations.  Buyer, beware.

You know the GOP has done something screwy

When their stance on torture has made the fact that President Obama calls water boarding 'torture' news.  Twenty years ago, would anyone have said differently? I can't figure out why, why, why so many in the conservative/GOP movement have hitched their wagons to defending torture.  No, strike that.  Not just defending, but proudly advocating and celebrating it.  I mean, geeesh.  If I was going to condone it, defend it, say it was needed since terrorists basically throw the rules of war out the window and base their entire grand strategic overviews on things condemned by every modern civilized state, I would like to think I'd hang my head in shame.  I'd do it in behind closed doors, in whispered tones and hushed voices.  In candlelight.  Behind the crates in the corner. 

But no.  Hell no.  The only party with a chance for stopping Obama's disastrously inept presidency has decided it will grab the pompoms and give a shout of joy for what we used to associate with the Vietcong, the Gestapo, the KGB, the Chinese Communists.  This is stuff that American Indians did that used to be a blight on their claim to the moral high ground (at least for non-multiculturalists).  So why do they have to cheer?  Why do Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Bachmann, Cain and others have to act as if it's a badge of honor that they want this to be our policy?  It does make voting for a third party candidate seem more appealing by the hour.

Skating on thin ice: a parable

Imagine a pond.  Beside the pond is a sign that says 'Stay Off, Thin Ice.'  Now consider an individual who wants more than anything to skate on the ice.  Now imagine there are two individuals next to him.  One is a conservative.  One is a liberal.  The conservative says, "Don't do it.  If you do and fall through the ice, you're on your own.  Don't see why I should help.  You know better."

The liberal says, "If you feel compelled to do it, for whatever reason, go ahead.  Don't worry, we'll get you out somehow.  Even if others have to die to save you, or we have to deplete our accounts to build rescue equipment, it doesn't matter.  The important thing is doing what you are driven to do.  Follow your passions, your desires, above all things.  There is nothing that shouldn't be sacrificed in order for you to do what you want, or what you are compelled to do by your own desires."

And therein lies the problem.  Our modern division between liberal/conservative is one that has done little to help the average person.  After all, how many people look around today and say 'gee, things are better than they've ever been!'?  We've reached a point where most old values have been discarded, and we are encouraged to do what we want to do.  Despite our tendencies to be compassionate, we are given plenty of excuses to let people stew in their own juices.  And yet there is nothing out there to suggest we really are happier, better off, more fulfilled than ever before.

In fact, just the opposite.  Whether it's a pandemic of teenage suicides, unprecedented levels of drug dependency, or a genera malaise toward living, the indicators are that a vast sea of people in our nation are feeling left out, missing something, floundering in the wake of two ideological warships locked in mortal combat. 

The reason could be the extremes from which we are left to choose.  It shouldn't be 'do what you want, consequences be damned', not matter why you may want it.  Nor should it be 'everyone for themselves, if you screw up, you're on your own.'  A good, Christian, alternative should be, "Hey, don't skate on the thin ice.  No matter what, no matter why you want to.  Don't risk if.  It could be thin.  You could break through and die.  And others could be impacted by your decision.  But know this everyone else: sometimes humans in their weaknesses will sneak out and try the ice just because they are human.  When that happens, we should work together to do what we can and save them." 

In the same way, Jesus handled a situation many years ago on the streets of Jerusalem.  When a woman was dragged from the act of adultery and tossed at the feet of Jesus, the pundits of the day thought they had him where they wanted him.  She was caught in the act of adultery.  The Law of Moses makes it clear what must be done: death by stoning!  But Jesus would have none of it. Famously, and in the part everyone loves to quote, Jesus asks that the one among them who is without sin cast the first stone.  One by one the rocks, those rocks held in hand eager to do the throwing, begin to drop.  Realizing the degree of their own sins, they got the point.

Then Jesus walked over to the woman.  In another statement often quoted on shows like Oprah, and other post-modern venues, he asks her if there is anyone left to condemn her.  No doubt shaken, she looks around at the thinning crowd and realizes that all who were there ready to stone her to death have dispersed.  There is no one left.  Jesus then says, "Neither do I condemn you."  Now this is one of the favorite passages by those on the more liberal side of the tracks.  I've heard entire sermons centered around this line.  This is telling the skater, "Don't worry, no doubt you had to skate on the ice, it was beyond your control, it was you affirming your desires and passions. We would never, ever condemn or criticize you in any way for fulfilling your desires, no matter what the outcome." 

But Jesus doesn't merely say, "Neither do I condemn you."  He says, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."  It's that last part that is missing in our post-modern age.  Sure, the sometimes self righteous condemnation from the right, or worse, the Darwinian philosophy of everyone for himself, can sound as cold and callous as a mob with stones in hand ready to pounce.   But the other, that there is no condemnation which means there is no moral absolute, no truth beyond our right to fulfill our every desire, is no less flawed; no less disastrous, as the body count in the wake of the deplorable sexual revolution should more than attest. 

It is the combination.  The Christian faith says 'there is no condemnation, but go and sin no more.'  For there is sin, sin for which we will all be held accountable.  It is not 'skate if you want, everyone else can suffer to affirm your desires.'  Nor is it 'skate if you will, and if you fall through the ice, then screw you.'  It's 'don't skate, because you and others could be hurt.  But if you do, we'll do everything we can to save you...so that you will never do such a thing again.'  Having that as the foundation of our modern value system could only help, given the disastrous legacy of the two fallacious choices with which we have been left in recent decades.