Hero worship and politics: persons vs. principles
After writing about NeverTrumper Max Boot’s motives yesterday, I decided I have more to say.
And it’s not just about Boot.
On that thread yesterday, commenter “Ann” offered a quote from a piece Boot wrote back in May of 2016. I don’t recall having seen the essay at the time it was written, but it’s an illuminating look at what Boot was thinking at the time, and why.
My guess is that his reasons were similar to those of a lot of his fellow NeverTrumpers. So let’s take a look:
My allegiance to the GOP was cemented during the 1980s, when I was in high school and college and Ronald Reagan was in the White House. For me, Reagan was what John F. Kennedy had been to an earlier generation: an inspirational figure who shaped my worldview. Reagan had his faults, like JFK, but he was optimistic and gentlemanly. He was pro-free trade and pro-immigration. He believed in limited government at home and American leadership abroad.
That’s what I believed in too — and that’s what I thought the Republican Party stood for. That’s why, despite my disagreements with social conservatives, I worked as a foreign policy advisor to John McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012 and Marco Rubio this year. All of those candidates, different as they were, recognizably represented Reagan Republicanism.
I don’t know about that; Reagan was certainly more conservative than McCain or Romney, and somewhat more conservative than Rubio, on most issues. I’m not even sure that I’d call McCain “gentlemanly” at all, either. But Romney was nothing if not gentlemanly, and all three were 1000% more “gentlemanly” than Trump is.
Just about everyone in the GOP is more “gentlemanly” than Trump is.
It was that word gentlemanly that practically leapt out at me when I saw it in Boot’s essay. I think the word is very telling—that, and his idea of Reagan as being an “inspirational figure.” Those two points made me suddenly see something even more clearly than before.
There’s a saying that you can’t reason someone out of a position that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. I think what’s going on with Boot (and perhaps most other NeverTrumpers) is that he was initially inspired to become a Republican by hero worship of an inspirational figure and a gentleman, not by reason. The decision was emotional and the reasons were embedded in perception of the admirable personality of the emulated person.
Of course, Democrats are hardly gentlemanly. But Boot doesn’t really talk about that; apparently he doesn’t expect them to be, so it’s okay.
One conservative principle that Boot does mention being in favor of is “limited government,” but he is opposed to “social conservation” (although he doesn’t define that, and it can mean different things to different people). Boot is for the principles of “free trade” and “immigration,” and seems to think Reagan was as well.
So, if Boot and his fellow NeverTrumpers are looking for a gentleman for free trade and immigration—and if Boot defines the latter as including illegal immigration—then of course he will detest Trump with a white-hot passion.
But when I did a bit of research just now on Reagan’s attitude towards free trade, I mostly found short articles saying absolutely, he was for it. But then I found this, which was extremely interesting. It refers to a speech that Donald Trump made in July of 2016:
Part of his approach as president, [Trump] said, would be to “use every lawful presidential power” to remedy trade disputes.
“President Reagan deployed similar trade measures when motorcycle and semiconductor imports threatened U.S. industry,” Trump said. “I remember. His tariff on Japanese motorcycles was 45 percent, and his tariff to shield America’s semiconductor industry was 100 percent, and that had a big impact, folks. A big impact.”
Reagan did impose those penalties on overseas motorcycle and semiconductor producers, though there is some question about whether the motorcycle and semiconductor tariffs were effective. (Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to an inquiry, but his prepared remarks included footnotes.)
However, Reagan’s record includes both free-trade and protectionist stands — a nuanced profile that suggests that Trump’s portrayal was partially accurate, but somewhat incomplete.
In a 1985 speech to business leaders, Reagan said that “our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets — free trade. I, like you, recognize the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations.”
However, read in its entirety, Reagan’s speech articulates a distinct sense of balance about the merits and drawbacks of free trade.
“I believe that if trade is not fair for all, then trade is free in name only,” he said. “I will not stand by and watch American businesses fail because of unfair trading practices abroad. I will not stand by and watch American workers lose their jobs because other nations do not play by the rules.”
While Reagan said he would reject proposals by some in Congress and the private sector that were “purely protectionist in nature,” and while he reiterated that “our commitment to free trade is undiminished,” he added this: “Let no one mistake our resolve to oppose any and all unfair trading practices. It is wrong for the American worker and American businessman to continue to bear the burden imposed by those who abuse the world trading system.”
True to his words, Reagan’s record in office was equally mixed.
That’s certainly interesting. Trump apparently did his homework on Reagan.
In Boot’s 2016 piece he adds the following, after saying that Hillary Clinton would be a lot better than Trump:
My hope is that [Trump] will lose by a landslide, and the Republican Party will come to its senses, rejecting both his ugly, nativist populism and the extreme, holier-than-thou conservatism represented by Ted Cruz.
Another telling remark, because Boot displays almost as great an antipathy to Ted Cruz as to Trump, although for entirely differently reasons: Cruz is a conservative, but a “holier-than-thou” one. Is Boot objecting to the fact that Cruz is religious? Hard to say. But whatever makes Boot hate the conservative Cruz, it seems to again have much more to do with Cruz’s personality than with his policies.
I think that someone like Boot was initially attracted, not to conservatism’s principles, but to particular conservative figures he admired as people and as gentlemen who played by a rulebook that Boot has in his head. The rest was secondary to Boot, very secondary. It’s an odd approach to politics, by my way of thinking. I care far less about personalities than principles, and always have, whether I was a liberal or a conservative. In fact, I’ve not found any political figures in my lifetime “inspiring” with the sole exception of Winston Churchill, and by the time I heard of him he was on his last legs.
But apparently there are plenty of people on both sides who respond more to personalities than anything else. That was certainly apparent during the Obama era (remember David Brooks, who seems to have decided on the basis of Obama’s prefectly creased pantleg that he would become president). And it’s been extremely apparent with Trump’s candidacy and presidency. I’m always a bit surprised to discover pundits like Boot among that group, but I shouldn’t be at all surprised. Not at all. Emotion guides politics for a lot of people.
I am convinced that at least part of Boot’s irrational antipathy to Trump results from his hatred for the land of his birth (Russia) and his fervent belief in the Kremlingate conspiracy theory. The hysteria over Russia coming from many leftists who formerly admired the Soviet Union and from many neoconservatives who were formerly leftist has nothing to do with a factual, reasonable critique of Putin and his policies.
On difference between Boot and myself was that I never formed a visceral attachment to Reagan. Back in the day, when Reagan was Governor of California, I had been tear-gassed in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in Berkeley. Suffice it to say that back then I didn’t consider myself a Reagan supporter.
By the first time Regan ran for President I had cooled enough to the Democrats to vote Third Party. After I voted Third Party again in 1984, post election reports from NPR made me aware of the sneering attitude that NPR announcers had towards Reagan.
I gradually warmed up to Reagan for his foreign policy stances. I very much liked his calling a spade a spade with his “Evil Empire” remark.
The more I read about Nicaragua, the more I liked Reagan’s positions. For example, while many well-informed but woefully ignorant libs said that Reagan was pushing the Sandinistas into the arms of the Soviets, extensive library research indicated to me that the Sandinistas were fanboys of Soviet Imperialism well before Reagan became President.
The support of John Kerry and other prominent Democrats for the Sandinistas prompted me to vote Republican for the first time in 1988.
Overall, disgust with Democrats was what prompted me to turn Republican. As such, personal attributes of neither Reagan nor Trump had much of an effect on my decisions to go Republican.
Don’t want to vote Republican? Consider the alternative- a Democrat in power.
I think you’ve identified one important factor in the makeup of NeverTrumpers neo. Perhaps, the definitive one.
In a sales course I once took, it was asserted that research had shown that 75% of people base their buying decisions primarily upon emotion. Initially somewhat resistant, time has persuaded me of that to be so. I’ve little doubt that it holds true in politics as well.
So, much like the Progressives, it’s all about the feelz for NeverTrumpers?
That might explain that, for years, they were more focused on being well thought of, than thinking well … and have now internalized that to the point that they can’t see the forest for the trees.
Including a focus on the hunt for nuances – which they see as flexing their intellectual heft and will help them to be well thought of – assuming that they are standing on the bedrock of fundamental truth, when that bedrock has been eroded all around them.
They are members in good standing of Bushwood-on-the-Potomac, and their feelz are hurt because President Al Czverik has arrived and is not interested in their feelz.
“So, much like the Progressives, it’s all about the feelz for NeverTrumpers?”
Spot on! And…exactly like good leftists: completely lacks self-awareness. Calls Cruz “holier-than-thou” but looks down his nose at Trump and his growing legions of supporters.
And who better than George Will (and now Boot) to embody “h-t-t” when bloviating from their high position about all who are inferior.
This, and all that DNC crazy, & we’ll get more Trump than we ever imagined. I’m ok with that.
“. . . he was initially inspired to become a Republican by hero worship of an inspirational figure and a gentleman, not by reason. The decision was emotional and the reasons were embedded in perception of the admirable personality of the emulated person.” [Neo]
This substantially agrees with and supports the comments by Richard Aubrey and Jamie (7/7 @ 9:28 am) in the previous post. Jamie’s comment reproduced below:
Deep down inside, wouldn’t we all prefer a president who presents us on the world stage as Melania Trump does? Currently, however, I would rather have a Trump who is dedicated to winning the war, rather than a leader who is happy toasting the enemy’s victory.
1. Boot’s constituency would be the patrons who finance his position at the Council on Foreign Relations. You might say the same about John Podhoretz, whose magazine is kept afloat by a single-digit population of elderly Jewish donors for whom six-digit sums are sofa change. Jennifer Rubin’s constituency would be Bezos and his liberal editors. I doubt their patrons put the screws to them or that they would ever need to; if they’d been the sort of people who’d go off the reservation, they’d not have been hired.
2. Boot lives well. Here’s the primary earner in the Boot household (https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/jeannette-boot). He’s part of the greater New York uber-haut bourgeoisie and it’s a reasonable inference he identifies with his class (wherever they live), not his notional countrymen.
3. It’s somewhat rude to point out the survey research you see from time to time indicating that 2/3 of Jewish respondents admit to a pollster that they’re antagonistic to evangelicals. This isn’t reactive. There is no similar antagonism to Jews among evangelicals which shows itself in survey research. Boot’s attitude to Cruz is bog standard in certain circles and it’s a reasonable wager that an important vector influencing the abiding preference for the Democratic Party among American Jews is that the Republicans are the preferred party of evangelicals.
4. It should be the deal among politicians and advocates on the starboard that each element gets some of its core concerns addressed. Social conservatives have gotten 40 years of lip service from Republican politicians and now not even that. (See A.M. McConnell’s reaction to Obergefell). Mr. Boot says he doesn’t care for ‘social conservatives’. What’s in it for people like me engaging in co-operative enterprises with Max Boot? Don’t let the door hit your tuchus on the way out, Mr. Boot.
5. One reason they’ve gotten lip service is that except for a brief shining moment ringmastered by Dr. Gingrich and Dr. Armey, Republican politicians are hopelessly ineffectual, in thrall to their donors, in thrall to Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce, in thrall to Krack Kampaign Konsultants, and in thrall to cheesy applause lines like ‘cut taxes’. How many times has it happened has it happened four decades that (1) Republican governors push tax reductions, (2) business-oriented careerist Republicans in the legislature sabotage efforts to adjust state spending trajectories, and then (3) the ‘tax cuts’ are withdrawn by a subsequent legislature because the red ink is flowing all over the place? What have Republican politicians ever done anywhere to repair our state colleges and universities? What do they do about civil service recruitment, promotion, and disciplinary process? The NeverTrumpers compare the reality of Trump to a gauzy and false conception of ‘conservative’ politics. Actually existing conservative politics is … Mitch McConnell and the standpatters in the Pennsylavania legislature.
“. . . we’ll get more Trump than we ever imagined. I’m ok with that. [John Guilfoyle @4:43 pm]
Although I am currently ok with that, too, let’s be careful what we wish for; hamartia, hubris, nemesis and all that other Greek tragedy stuff.
It was that word gentlemanly that practically leapt out at me when I saw it in Boot’s essay.
Did you catch Charles Fried’s inane public remarks in 2008, saying the Republican ticket was unacceptable because of Gov. Palin? Gov. Palin had 11 years under her belt supervising public agencies. The Democratic ticket’s executive experience consisted of running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground. The previous Democratic ticket consisted of a pair of lawyers (one a capable if unscrupulous ambulance chaser, the other a superlatively ordinary small-practice lawyer). The one prior to that was headed by a lapsed newspaper reporter (whose running mate, however, did have executive experience and had made a notable sacrifice in giving up his MidLaw partnership for public office; how much respect did JL get in the Democratic Party after 2000?)
The shallowness and stupidity of Fried’s remarks tells you something about the quality of our elites (he’s a Harvard faculty member who’d been solicitor-general). Barack Obama’s Ivy League degrees mattered more to him than anything BO had ever done with his life. Sarah Palin’s vocational BA and flat vowels made her untouchable.
When the Iran-Contra scandal erupted during Reagan’s presidency, he was essentially given a pass. To this day, people like Chris Matthews call him “the great man” and Rachel Maddow plays excerpts of his speeches.
Trump won’t be given a pass, certainly not by his political enemies nor by those who have wished him well despite themselves. When the fall happens, and it will happen, his fate will be that of every other arrogant, egotistical, rabble-rouser in history. It’s time to review what Hanson wrote in January of 2016 warning us about Trump:
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/is-trump-our-napoleon/
So much of what’s going on reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw on a car in Boston back in the 1980s that went something like this: “My kid can beat up your honor roll kid.” A response to bumper stickers that proclaimed a car owner’s child was an honor roll student.
In my opinion the reason why so many, especially the young, operate from their feelings instead of their logic is that the educational system, at all levels, is failing them.
I understand that younger folks tend to operate from emotion naturally but the purpose of education and maturity is to change that. Unfortunately popular culture reinforces that way of thinking so without a significant change in education I see it getting worse instead of better. (I really hate being pessimistic; it goes against my nature, but I find myself doing it more and more as a result of keeping up with the daily news.)
Neo is right; policies are infinitely more important than personalities. A good rule of thumb is to judge people who do unimportant things, such as entertainers and celebrities, by their personalities. Judge people who do important things by their deeds.
Gringo, above @3:20 PM:
“I gradually warmed up to Reagan for his foreign policy stances. I very much liked his calling a spade a spade with his “Evil Empire” remark.”
Reagan took a lot of flak for saying that. At the time, I never really understood why; after all the Soviet Union was clearly an empire (it was basically the old Russian Empire with a new label and new slogans (“Now with 1000% more bloody oppression!” if it had followed truth in advertising laws)). And as for “Evil” with its epic range of horrors, from mega-death slaughters to the relentless soul-destroying oppression down to the most petty level, if the CCCP was not evil I shudder to think what it would take to earn that label from Reagan’s critics.
Actually, I know what it would take for a country to be labelled “Evil”: be America. Or a friend and ally of America. Then these people would build academic or journalistic careers upon calling you evil in ever more elaborate ways. Many have.
I simply do not understand people who expect political representatives to be heroes, or ideologically pure, shining knights in armor, or anything else except a person I have elected to represent me and my interests with a city, county, state or federal body. When I vote, I look at the candidates that are actually running, with an actual chance at winning, and select the one which I believe will do the best job of representing the interests of me, my family, my community and other entities relevant to me.
The person does not have to represent every one of my interests perfectly – just as long as they do a better job of it than the other candidate(s).
The person does not have to be a “gentleman” or anything else in terms of moral perfection. I’m not electing a saint.
In terms of the 2016 presidential election, there were only two candidates that had a chance at winning. Whatever Trump is or is not, Hillary Clinton was 100% certain to pursue a platform that was similarly bad for me personally, or worse, than that of the Obama years, which had left virtually everyone I know in a worse place than they had been in 2008. She was 100% certain to continue divisive SJW policies that I am watching divide my family and friends. What I think of Trump as a person (and you’ll recall that it wasn’t good) is irrelevant – the choice was a no-brainer.
I’m sick and tired of all the hysteria and hallucinations from the left and from the NeverTrump contingent. The former may proceed straight to hell for all I care at this point; and I don’t think much more of the latter if they can’t shut up and put up an actual alternative candidate that can withstand the incessant 24/7/365 fire from the left and do useful things for people like me.
At the time, I never really understood why; after all the Soviet Union was clearly an empire (it was basically the old Russian Empire with a new label and new slogans (“Now with 1000% more bloody oppression!” if it had followed truth in advertising laws)).
The media take their cues from their sources and their common professional culture. Among their sources would have been Foreign Service cookie-pushers (think Donald McHenry or Cyrus Vance) who have visceral reactions against plain speaking. Their culture is influenced by their status as junior-grade word merchants (the senior grades being academic and lawyers). At the time, it would have been considered gauche to offer explicit endorsements of Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe. Instead, media types tended to print stories with one of four themes: the admirable qualities of 3d world reds, the pathos of the People, the horrifying character of American allies; and the incompetence, vulgarity, and perfidy of American officials. What John Leo had to say applies: journalists write stories using standard templates, and their errors are predictable. The long and the short of it was that calling a spade a spade was anathema because (1) the real problem wasn’t the reds and (2) blaming Soviet Russia was vulgar (‘simplistic’ was a phrase liberal journalists liked to use). Reagan wasn’t using the media’s script, and they reacted quite antagonistically to that. Democratic pols (with some exceptions) took cues from the media and from quondam officials like Vance. (Exceptions would be Dante Fascell et al, who had a delineated set of views and knew their own minds).
and I don’t think much more of the latter if they can’t shut up and put up an actual alternative candidate that can withstand the incessant 24/7/365 fire from the left and do useful things for people like me.
Their best shots would be Ben Sasse, Bob Corker, and Jeff Flake in that order. Not a deep bench.
The person does not have to be a “gentleman” or anything else in terms of moral perfection. I’m not electing a saint.
Well, it would be congenial if the President were a gentleman. George W. Bush was bound an determined to negotiate with Congress on domestic policy, split differences, and avoid directly answering his detractors. How’d that work out for him?
TOC @5:06,
Reagan was given a pass for three reasons; he’d never lied to us before so he deserved the benefit of the doubt when he claimed not to know, the adult recognition that sometimes dealing with (at that point) a lesser devil is necessary to defeat a greater devil. Such as US assistance to Stalin to hinder Hitler, arming the Afghanistan mujahideen to stop the Soviet invasion and Iran-Contra. Had the democrat controlled Congress placed National Security before Marxist ideology, Iran-Contra would never have been needed.
Like many of us, Prof Hanson has greatly revised his opinion of Trump since that Jan. 02, 2016 article. As any perusal of his recent articles demonstrates.
Perhaps one day you’ll be able to revise your opinions too. A closed mind is the severest form of arthritis…
KyndyllG,
Hear, hear…
As I mentioned before, Reagan spent a great deal of time polishing his skills as a inspirational conservative speaker. Here is the Wiki page on his work with the GE theater. It think it was his off-air, in person meetings and speeches that were the primary part of this. (Note GE fired Reagan because he said the FDR’s TVA was a good example of bad crony capitalism. Oops! Those guys bought a lot of GE power generators.)
During Reagan’s early political days, I was very busy and not terribly political myself. I didn’t find him especially inspiring, but I think I was persuaded by him more than a little. I was confused that classical liberal principles were something that Democrats wanted.
I also had the quirk of thinking a good president should be a wonk, technocrat, and detail man; and Reagan wasn’t that. I’ve since learned better.
____
Neo’s really pulled the comments in on this one, but … Max Boot wrote some vaguely conservative stuff a very long time ago in the WSJ, then left the paper and went completely to the dogs. The Internationalists of the WSJ have never had a good track record as conservatives.
I think Art Deco hits some great points, especially #2. So Jeanette Boot is deeply in bed with the hedge fund boys and the commodity/currency traders. Some of these are the GOPe folks that want open boarders etc. Look at the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies and their flagship fund called the Medallion fund, that no mere mortal can buy into. The Medallion fund trades in commodities and has AVERAGED 35% annual return over 20 years. Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney would drool over that one. It’s as likely as Hillary turning a $1K cattle futures bet into $100K.
I’m pretty sure guys like Boot think country club elitism and crony capitalism are a marriage made in heaven.
_____
I also think that these GOPe uber capitalists are quite afraid of a trade war. The fact that Trump and allies are actually scoring significant political victories have driven the left into a hysteria. The looming trade war is now driving the GOPe stock jobbers (antiquated short-hand) into hysteria. Their reasons for hatred and hysteria is rarely what they say it is.
Like many others, I saw djt as a NYC liberal in conservative clothing during the primaries and feared he would prove to be one after he won the nomination. He remains as not ‘conservative’ but is a pragmatist who loves our country and seeks ways to elevate MAGA. I see nothing wrong with that. What is refreshing about djt is his refusal to conform by reining in his bombastic character, a person who does not pretend to be a politician, but instead a rogue as was Palin. Neither are perfect, but then who is.
As a strong Cruz supporter in the primaries, I am more than pleased with The Donald as POTUS. And I enjoy witnessing his ability to troll the dnc-hollyweird-msm axis of evil. Plus his stamina is amazing. After Cruz won the Iowa caucus I could not imagine I would ever praise Trump. Oh well, I have been wrong before.
Cannot add much to the discussion. Many good points made.
Boot and other GOPe Never Trumpers are unable to get past Trump’s personality. And I understand that. I’m not fond of Trump’s way of presenting himself either. I have watched many of his rallies and they have become, at least to me, repetitive and not very compelling. Yet he packs in the crowds and they cheer him enthusiastically from start to finish. Kinda reminds me of a rock star concert without the music. His acolytes are entranced with him – like a cult of personality. It is amazing to me.
I like his policies, I like that he cannot be intimidated by the MSM, I love his SCOTUS picks, I love his law and order stance, I like his peace through strength efforts, and more. I’m not fond of his personality, but it doesn’t matter to me. What matters is results. As long as he gets results, I’m on board.
My support of him leading up to the election was an anti-Hillary position more than a pro-Trump one. Even if he wasn’t getting results, I still could never vote for a Democrat or hope they win. It’s just not in my DNA.
Boot is similar to one of Bush II’s speechwriters. What was her name… she was a previous speech writer for Reagan and admired Reagan’s qualities. Her Baltimore/DC social class constrained her views on foreign policy and other things.
Humans are a creature of their class, upbringing, tradition, and tribe. Through all the rationalizations, they will still Obey the Authority.
The idea that the US President knows everything that is classified should have been one of the first things Americans gave up after receiving the revelation of the DS.
There are personality cults, and Americans have plenty of them. It is perhaps just too embarrassing to recognize in a country known for nationalistic pride in individual freedom and independence.
One thing I know MBoot is not allowed to think about or write about is how HRC and other Leftists are connected to underground crime and various other pedo like activities. That’s gentlemanly enough for Boot, that should be enough for the rest of America they believe. This aristocratic fetish with honorable appearances while behind closed doors they are selling sex slaves and engaging in moral degradation and debauchery… is very normal. Even an exceptional country is not immune.
J.J.,
Your attitude to Trump is like mine. Trump was not my first choice for President (that was Bobby Jindal). He was not even my 16th choice. When it came down to Trump or Hillary, however, it had to be Trump.
I am sorry that we will not have a Palin presidency on account of the sleazy slime-slinging of her the MSM and the Dems performed. She is a woman of proven courage, physical, moral, and political. I think she would have made a good president, far better than any Dem since…um, give me a minute, I’ll think of one.
The last Democrat I felt able to vote for was Henry “Scoop” Jackson. There are no more like him.
Which means that there’s nothing “elite” about Max Boot’s opinions. He’s an emotionally-driven animal, just like the rest of us.
Michael Lonie Says:
July 8th, 2018 at 1:08 am
I am sorry that we will not have a Palin presidency on account of the sleazy slime-slinging of her the MSM and the Dems performed.
* * *
I think the response to Palin from the grass roots GOP may have been the first time the Rich and Powerful realized that they were out of touch with the Republican / conservative base – and they opted then to side with the Democrats AGAINST her.
That betrayal, along with the Establishment’s treatment of the Tea Party movement, convinced me that they were not actually conservatives any more.
I would have been happy with Cruz, much less so with any of the others (reduced to a Low Energy Jeb or Crooked Hillary, the choice would still have to be Republican), but, since Trump won the nomination, it had to be him — and I am since quite happy with what he is doing.
If it’s only a matter of style or a class thing that makes folks like Max Boot and Bill Kristol abhor Pres. Trump, why then did Kristol’s Foreign Policy Initiative think tank invite Sarah Palin to join them in signing a letter to Pres. Obama in 2009 urging his support of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan?
If it’s only a matter of style or a class thing that makes folks like Max Boot and Bill Kristol abhor Pres. Trump, why then did Kristol’s Foreign Policy Initiative think tank invite Sarah Palin to join them in signing a letter to Pres. Obama in 2009 urging his support of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan?
Why do Bret Stephens, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, John Podhoretz, David Frum, Erick Erickson, Patrick Frey, Mona Charen, Kevin Williamson, Ross Douthat, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker etc etc get a pass because of of an inconsequential invitation that Wm. Kristol sent nine years ago?
They get a pass because it serves the progressive cause and the “arc of history.” Some probably have no problem with that: Kristol, Boot, Will, Frum, Rubin are prime examples of those who no longer care.
For a conservative is living in the Acella corridor and working in the big media complex akin to being under interrogation and torture in that everyone has a breaking point? Ask “Winston Smith.”
Funny, it was Palin’s nomination that made me realize I was out of step with the GOP… When McCain named her as his VP pick, I turned to my husband and said, “Oh my God, I think he just won the presidency.” And the next day the slanders began, first in the media and among Dems, and then from the GOP priestly caste, and I realized that I was terribly wrong – about my party, not about Palin.
Reagan WAS great – I never voted for him, instead voting Libertarian (Ed Clark, David Bergland and … Ron Paul! ’80, ’84, ’88).
Funny on Palin, I like her policies & bio — but hate the acoustic sound of her voice; also hate Hillary’s voice. Obama’s voice is great, with terrible policies. While “the GOP priestly caste” has a nice ring, I think focusing on GOPe is better labeling at this point. And the GOPe opposition to Palin was terrible, as well as the acceptance of sleazeball lies.
To those who “don’t like Trump” — notice how few are willing to fully quote a 240 char (max) tweet. Most who claim not to like him aren’t reading his tweets. If they are listening to his speeches (I don’t), it shouldn’t be a surprise that they are repetitious — the rock star model is an excellent analogy.
People want the experience of hearing it from the guy they’re supporting.
The guy they’re supporting — not the guy who’s doing the policies they like. (or in Hillary’s many $200k totally repetitious and mostly dishonest speeches, the policies of the woman they support.)
Being NeverHillary, I can honestly say that had Hillary been elected and gotten the non-court results which Trump has gotten, I’d still oppose Hillary on the SCOTUS & the culture war, but be far less unhappy about the economics. I did believe then there were zero chances of her doing as well as Trump is doing — tho the “tax cut” magic wand was equally available, it was emotionally unthinkable to the Dems.
I also knew the USSR was economically doomed, tho not when it would reform or fail. I actually expected more of Venezuela type total ruin than Gorbachev’s fairly soft crash landing.
The fact that pro-life conservatives are secretly (and illegally?) banned from being hired by top colleges, yet open socialists are celebrated, causes me to support getting the gov’t out of support for education/ indoctrination.
On-line colleges & certificates need to be promoted.
K-12 vouchers for more parental influence and involvement need to be promoted.
Sexual promiscuity, leading to children being born outside of marriage, needs to be identified honestly as socially negative behavior.
If shaming folks who are Reps is OK because they’re Reps, shaming folk getting gov’t welfare who are having sex outside of marriage will be coming back into fashion, maybe.
Neo:
Re: “holier-than-thou”:
I think you’re running up against culturally-widespread bigotry, there, delivered to the average non-evangelical person almost intravenously by Hollywood stereotypes.
We know that Hollywood fills its screens with bad stereotype characters “straight from central casting,” as they say: The evil CEO with the fantastic sculpted haircut. The hardworking hero scientist whose warnings are ignored by uncomprehending others. The rural southerner who’s an unreconstructed racist, carries a shotgun, and is lacking a few teeth. The gruff police-chief who’s always riding the hero detective. The psychopathic high-ranking military officer with the ramrod-straight spine. The conscience-hero lower-ranked officer who’s willing to disobey orders pursuing some matter of justice or compassion. The liberal Christian clergyman who barely can be said to believe the tenets of Christianity, but is a sympathetic character by showing compassion and wisdom. The telegenic-but-cheesy slick evangelist revival-preacher type who preaches conservative morals but is having an affair.
Now, these stereotypes and stories are absorbed over our lifetimes. They are, for our culture, what campfire stories were for ancient human tribal nomads; or what instruction by the village elders were for more-settled communities. They help persons construct their worldview, filling in details about the world for topics where personal experience is lacking.
Max Boot is not, himself, an evangelical. He doesn’t appear to be married to one. He may not know many of them, either. His sole contacts with Christians may be with liberal Christians of the mainline denominations. His sole contacts with religious Jews are likely to be of the liberal wing of American Reformed Judaism: “Cheeseburger Reformed,” as a semi-religious Jewish family friend of mine calls them.
I suspect that his total exposure to actual American evangelical Christianity is small. And I expect that some of the phraseology and emotionalism found there would be extremely off-putting for someone with his cultural background and set of friends.
Given all this, why does Boot call Ted Cruz “holier-than-thou?”
Easy: Ted Cruz is known to be an Evangelical Christian. He has somewhat greasy-looking hair. His eyes and mouth turn downward at the corners, such that even when he is trying to speak inspiringly, he almost always seems on the verge of breaking into weeping. He wears a nice conservative suit.
He is the perfect actor to cast for the role of a “telegenic-but-cheesy slick evangelist revival-preacher type who preaches conservative morals but is having an affair.”
Even his wife looks reminiscent of the type of actress one casts for the wife of such a character: The way she does her hair, the way her mouth is shaped. She looks like a more recent-vintage and younger incarnation of Tammy Faye Bakker.
I think Boot hears what Ted Cruz supports/opposes politically, and is immediately primed to indulge in negative stereotypes about Evangelicals.
Then, he sees Cruz and his wife on the screen, and all those stereotypes are immediately “confirmed”: The guy just looks like it.
So Boot immediately has a gut reaction of revulsion. All the Hollywood plotlines involving that kind of person immediately “inform” — if that’s the word — Boot’s opinion about Cruz.
Now a person who grew up in a good Southern Baptist Church, with friends there, would not be susceptible to this kind of propaganda. Even if that person had later become a Catholic or a Zen Buddhist, that person’s earlier wide exposure would prevent the Hollywood stereotype from dominating his emotional associations with Evangelical Protestants.
But not so, with Boot (and many other folks). For them, the Hollywood Stereotype is their main source of information. The outcome is easily foreseen!