George Will: In Case of Trump Nomination, Break Glass

[timosman]

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/42269

George Will · May 1, 2016


Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction.

Ted Cruz’s announcement of his preferred running mate has enhanced the nomination process by giving voters pertinent information. They already know the only important thing about Trump’s choice: His running mate will be unqualified for high office because he or she will think Trump is qualified.

Hillary Clinton’s optimal running mate might be Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a pro-labor populist whose selection would be balm for the bruised feelings of Bernie Sanders' legions. Running mates rarely matter as electoral factors: In 2000, Al Gore got 43.2 percent of the North Carolina vote. In 2004, John Kerry, trying to improve upon Gore’s total there, ran with North Carolina Sen. John Edwards but received 43.6 percent. If, however, Brown were to help deliver Ohio for Clinton, the Republican path to 270 electoral votes would be narrower than a needle’s eye.

Republican voters, particularly in Indiana and California, can, by supporting Cruz, make the Republican convention a deliberative body rather than one that merely ratifies decisions made elsewhere, some of them six months earlier. A convention’s sovereign duty is to choose a plausible nominee who has a reasonable chance to win, not to passively affirm the will of a mere plurality of voters recorded episodically in a protracted process.

Trump would be the most unpopular nominee ever, unable to even come close to Mitt Romney’s insufficient support among women, minorities and young people. In losing disastrously, Trump probably would create down-ballot carnage sufficient to end even Republican control of the House. Ticket splitting is becoming rare in polarized America: In 2012, only 5.7 percent of voters supported a presidential candidate and a congressional candidate of opposite parties.

At least half a dozen Republican senators seeking re-election and Senate aspirants can hope to win if the person at the top of the Republican ticket loses their state by, say, only four points, but not if he loses by 10. A Democratic Senate probably would guarantee a Supreme Court with a liberal cast for a generation. If Clinton is inaugurated next Jan. 20, Merrick Garland probably will already be on the court — confirmed in a lame duck Senate session — and justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer will be 83, 80 and 78, respectively.

The minority of people who pay close attention to politics includes those who define an ideal political outcome and pursue it, and those who focus on the worst possible outcome and strive to avoid it. The former experience the excitements of utopianism, the latter settle for prudence’s mild pleasure of avoiding disappointed dreams. Both sensibilities have their uses, but this is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency.

Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life. Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.

It was 32 years after Jimmy Carter won 50.1 percent in 1976 that a Democrat won half the popular vote. Barack Obama won only 52.9 percent and then 51.1 percent, but only three Democrats — Andrew Jackson (twice), Franklin Roosevelt (four times) and Lyndon Johnson — have won more than 53 percent. Trump probably would make Clinton the fourth, and he would be a tonic for her party, undoing the extraordinary damage (13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, 913 state legislative seats) Obama has done.

If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power. Six times since 1945 a party has tried, and five times failed, to secure a third consecutive presidential term. The one success — the Republicans' 1988 election of George H.W. Bush — produced a one-term president. If Clinton gives her party its first 12 consecutive White House years since 1945, Republicans can help Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, or someone else who has honorably recoiled from Trump, confine her to a single term.

 

[Krugminator2]

Very good analysis as usual from George Will.

Trump will be the least libertarian nominee of either party in my lifetime. He is basically the best thing ever to happen to supporters of increased government.

 

[Petar]

Very good analysis as usual from George Will.

Trump will be the least libertarian nominee of either party in my lifetime. He is basically the best thing ever to happen to supporters of increased government.

Compared to the usual, establishment politicians that generally work directly for the globalist cabal, Donald Trump is George Washington (also not exactly a "libertarian", per se).

 

[Krugminator2]

Compared to the usual, establishment politicians that generally work directly for the globalist cabal, Donald Trump is George Washington (also not exactly a "libertarian", per se).

A John McCain/Michael Dukakis unity ticket would probably be a slightly more libertarian choice than Donald Trump. Not by much but still preferable. I would absolutely support George W. Bush over Trump and I hate George W. Bush.

Donald Trump is the establishment and "globalist" is a word nutjobs use. Free trade and and increased division of labor are not a bad thing. It is called capitalism. It works.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction.

Yup, the liberty movement, especially its public figures, needs to make it absolutely clear where we stand.

...i.e. against Trump and his idiocratic national socialism lite.

Collaborators will be blackballed (and rightly so) in the country in general and the GOP in particular (and, I hope, in the liberty movement).

Once the hangover sets in, after Hillary's inaugurated, watch Trump people throw away their uniforms and pretend they were never-part of it.

We shouldn't let them get away with that.

Rand should break his earlier promise to endorse the nominee, whoever it is, and call a press conference to explicitly not endorse Trump.

...and also explain exactly why, on the basis of libertarian principles.

Ted Cruz’s announcement of his preferred running mate has enhanced the nomination process by giving voters pertinent information. They already know the only important thing about Trump’s choice: His running mate will be unqualified for high office because he or she will think Trump is qualified.

LOL, indeed

The minority of people who pay close attention to politics includes those who define an ideal political outcome and pursue it, and those who focus on the worst possible outcome and strive to avoid it. The former experience the excitements of utopianism, the latter settle for prudence’s mild pleasure of avoiding disappointed dreams. Both sensibilities have their uses, but this is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency.

No worries about a Trump Presidency, Hillary will take care of that.

Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life. Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.

Yup, especially the former point.

If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power. Six times since 1945 a party has tried, and five times failed, to secure a third consecutive presidential term. The one success — the Republicans' 1988 election of George H.W. Bush — produced a one-term president. If Clinton gives her party its first 12 consecutive White House years since 1945, Republicans can help Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, or someone else who has honorably recoiled from Trump, confine her to a single term.

We're not going to agree on a nominee for 2020, George, but we can be allies of convenience until Il Toupe is destroyed.

 

[Petar]

A John McCain/Michael Dukakis unity ticket would probably be a slightly more libertarian choice than Donald Trump. Not by much but still preferable. I would absolutely support George W. Bush over Trump and I hate George W. Bush.

Donald Trump is the establishment and "globalist" is a word nutjobs use. Free trade and and increased division of labor are not a bad thing. It is called capitalism. It works.

John McCain is one of the worst traitors in US history.

The guy just wants to arm ISIS all day long so that America can eventually be bankrupted in endless wars.

Only stupid arseholes with no clue whatsoever fail to realize that this and "Free Trade Deals" are how a cabal of fascists intend to swallow the USA up into a GLOBAL system.

| Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will.If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it |

| David Rockefeller |

| We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government.The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries |

| David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991 |

 

[r3volution 3.0]

John McCain is one of the worst traitors in US history.

The guy just wants to arm ISIS all day long so that America can eventually be bankrupted in endless wars.

Like the Iraq and Libya wars, which Donald Trump supported?

Only stupid arseholes with no clue whatsoever fail to realize that this and "Free Trade Deals" are how a cabal of fascists intend to swallow the USA up into a GLOBAL system.

Yes. Trump, Bernie, Hillary, and the AFL-CIO agree - higher taxes on imports are good.

We libertarians, on the other hand, tend to oppose higher taxes.

 

[purplechoe]

A John McCain/Michael Dukakis unity ticket would probably be a slightly more libertarian choice than Donald Trump. Not by much but still preferable. I would absolutely support George W. Bush over Trump and I hate George W. Bush.

Donald Trump is the establishment and "globalist" is a word nutjobs use. Free trade and and increased division of labor are not a bad thing. It is called capitalism. It works.

Are you out of your fucking mind? John McCain? I feel like I'm reading nothing but establishment MSM propaganda on this forum lately. I don't know why I bother coming here lately... :o

 

[Petar]

Like the Iraq and Libya wars, which Donald Trump supported?

Yes. Trump, Bernie, Hillary, and the AFL-CIO agree - higher taxes on imports are good.

We libertarians, on the other hand, tend to oppose higher taxes.

Attila the Trump is the one who is looking at the whole thing through a standard, business-lens:

He's serious about hitting ISIS where it hurts, letting Russia do it as well, NOT arming them, making a ring around the oil, and saving money elsewhere inside the military.

Orders of magnitude better than the standard neocon who only really wants to turn the whole of the USA into a military base while simultaneously bankrupting it.

Also:

Higher tariffs > Managed trade deals written by a cabal of globalist fascists

 

[Krugminator2]

Are you out of your $#@!ing mind? John McCain? I feel like I'm reading nothing but establishment MSM propaganda on this forum lately. I don't know why I bother coming here lately... :o

It has nothing to do with John McCain. It has everything to do with how terrible Trump is. Trump is really that bad and the fact that it is not obvious to everyone is maddening. I don't get it at all.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Attila the Trump is the one who is looking at the whole thing through a standard, business-lens.

So it was his business acumen which led him to think that removing Qaddafi would improve Libya?

Or removing Saddam would improve Iraq?

Or that either war would benefit the US?

Must have been the same business acumen that made him think all those now bankrupt casinos were going to be profitable.

He's serious about hitting ISIS where it hurts letting Russia do it as well, NOT arming them

I don't think he can locate Syria on a map.

and saving money elsewhere inside the military

How, specifically?

O, right, great deals...

Orders of magnitude better than the standard neocon who only really wants to turn the whole of the USA into a military base while simultaneously bankrupting it.

Sounds like Trump.

Higher tariffs > Managed trade deals written by a cabal of globalist fascists

No

higher tariffs < lower tariffs (as wrought by NAFTA et al)

And, btw, Trump belongs to exactly that class of "global fascists" you harp on about.

Who do you think finances his real estate deals?

...it's not the neighborhood credit union.

 

[purplechoe]

It has nothing to do with John McCain. It has everything to do with how terrible Trump is. Trump is really that bad and the fact that it is not obvious to everyone is maddening. I don't get it at all.

You lost all credibility with the above post, from this point on I couldn’t care less what you think...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You lost all credibility with the above post, from this point on I couldn’t care less what you think...

Would you explain specifically how McCain is worse than Trump, in terms of policy?

Without doing a detailed analysis, I'd say they're about the same, with Trump slightly behind.

They're both war-mongering social democrats.

 

[Petar]

So it was his business acumen which led him to think that removing Qaddafi would improve Libya?

Or removing Saddam would improve Iraq?

Or that either war would benefit the US?

Must have been the same business acumen that made him think all those now bankrupt casinos were going to be profitable.



I don't think he can locate Syria on a map.



How, specifically?

O, right, great deals...



Sounds like Trump.



No

higher tariffs < lower tariffs (as wrought by NAFTA et al)

And, btw, Trump belongs to exactly that class of "global fascists" you harp on about.

Who do you think finances his real estate deals?

...it's not the neighborhood credit union.

Like I said - Trump is not playing for the team that intentionally wishes to destroy the USA.

He may have been wrong about some things in the past, and I don't even doubt that he is still wrong about some things today, but his business acumen truly is great, and a couple of bankruptcies don't really diminish that very much.

In fact, being that the USA is essentially bankrupt now, why not have someone in charge that has experience with bankruptcy?

Actually declaring bankruptcy is a million times more honest than quietly selling the country to globalist fascists piece by piece.

And sorry, Trump just is not part of the cabal that you are referring to.

If he was, then he would not be waging war on their beloved "Free Trade" deals, along with threatening to end their endless parade of failed wars.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It has nothing to do with John McCain. It has everything to do with how terrible Trump is. Trump is really that bad and the fact that it is not obvious to everyone is maddening. I don't get it at all.

You lost all credibility with the above post, from this point on I couldn’t care less what you think...

and thus an answer to your question.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Like I said - Trump is not playing for the team that intentionally wishes to destroy the USA.

Then why did he support the bank bailouts?

Why did he support Bernanke's money printing?

Why did he support the Iraq War?

Why did he support the Libya war?

Why are his current foreign policy advisors neocons?

Why does he support the PATRIOT ACT and NSA spying?

He may have been wrong about some things in the past and I don't even doubt that he is still wrong about some things today, but his business acumen truly is great, and a couple of bankruptcies don't really diminish that very much.

Do all of his horrific political judgements (see above) diminish it?

If making a lot of money is the sole criterion, well then nominate George Soros.

He made a lot more money and started with a lot less.

In fact, being that the USA is essentially bankrupt now, why not have someone in charge that has experience with bankruptcy?

LMAO

threatening to end their endless parade of failed wars.

...all of which he supported.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Like I said - Trump is not playing for the team that intentionally wishes to destroy the USA.

Oh, that makes such a difference. If he destroys the USA unintentionally that's just fine.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

and thus an answer to your question.

Indeed

Did you see the clip of Cruz talking with a Trumpkin today?

He hit a brick wall of "lalalalala I can't hear you."

 

[younglibertarian]

Compared to the usual, establishment politicians that generally work directly for the globalist cabal, Donald Trump is George Washington (also not exactly a "libertarian", per se).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Are you out of your fucking mind? John McCain? I feel like I'm reading nothing but establishment MSM propaganda on this forum lately. I don't know why I bother coming here lately... :o